RESPONSIBLE PRISON PROJECT:

RESHAPING THE TEXAS PRISON SYSTEM FOR GREATER PUBLIC SAFETY

September 7, 2016


By Aaron Flaherty, David Graham, Michael Smith, William D Jones, and Vondre CashTABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..1
Intake ..2
System Issues ..5
Inmate-Of?cer Dynamic ..5
Visitation ..10
Chaplaincy ..15
Commissary Issues ..19
Computers and Technology ..23
Food Services ..26
Laundry Services ..28
Medical ..29
Disciplinary ..34
Grievances ..36
Privileges and Incentives ..38
Re? Entry ..41
Individualized Treatment Program (ITP) ..43
Vocational and Educational Programs ..44
Administrative Segregation Programs ..46
Unit Issues ..49
Unit Arrival ..49
Black Market ..50

Group Punishment ..52

Living Conditions ..54

Work and Labor Issues ..56
Classi?cation ..59
State Classi?cation Committee (SCC) ..59
Unit Classi?cation Committee (UCC) ..60
Parole ..60
Miscellaneous ..63

Conclusion ..65

RESPONSIBLE PRISON PROJECT:

RESHAPING THE TEXAS PRISON SYSTEM FOR GREATER PUBLIC SAFETY

Introduction

It has often been said that those who are closest to a problem are closest to its
solution. That is no less true for those who are in prison. Prisoners see things that need to
be changed within the prison system, things that people in society and upper-level prison
administrators do not. The ?ve writers of this proposal are all ?rst-time o?enders, with a
combined prison experience of 95 years, and have contemplated the intricacies of prison.

The authors of this paper assert that large?scale change needs to be made in
how the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) operates its prisons so that it
effectively prepares prisoners for re-entry into society. It should be noted that TDCJ's
Mission Statement is a positive guide for rehabilitating inmates: ?The mission of TDCJ is
to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate
oifenders into society, and assist victims of crime.? This mission statement, however, is
not being executed. In fact, an overwhelming majority of TDCJ personnel are unfamiliar
with the mission statement and therefore cannot fulfill it. As a result, TDCJ is failing to
ful?ll its stated goals.

The aim of this project is to move the Texas prison system from one that
focuses on punishment to one that embraces rehabilitation and therefore carries out its

mission statement. Some of these proposals will not require legislative action?they will

I

Responsible Prison Project 2

only require decisions from TDCJ's administration. Other changes will need approval by
the State Legislature. All of them are in line with mission statement, encourage
personal responsibility for a person's crimes, reinforce personal responsibility for
rehabilitation, and are cost-effective. None of the proposals included herein threaten the
security of the prison system.

While it is true people not in prison can easily come up with ideas for change,
it is the perspective of those who are incarcerated that would ground them in reality.

Therefore, the following proposals are presented to effectuate that change.1

Intake

The intake process?Day One of an inmate's prison experience?should look
like an introduction to a period of reform, but it does not. Actually, Day One strips a
person of their dignity and serves to dehumanize and humiliate the prisoner. The authors
of this paper all went through the intake process more than ?fteen years ago, but men
were interviewed who have gone through the it within the last three years, and it has not
changed much. No information is available to the authors about the intake process for
female inmates. The details of the intake process below will rely on the most recent
information so an accurate representation will be presented.

After an inmate gets sentenced by a district court judge, he is shortly thereafter
transferred to TDCJ. Before getting assigned to a prison unit, all inmates go through the

intake process. This process begins at a transfer facility.

 

lAll proposals to correct issues that need to be remedied are italicized throughout this text for
easier identi?cation by the reader.

Responsible Prison Project 3

When inmates arrive at a transfer facility, they are taken from the bus and
walked to the entrance of the facility.2 Immediately they are yelled at by officers to strip
naked, get ?nuts to butts,? and after being searched they are kept naked for several
minutes until they are issued some boxers.3 If inmates have personal footwear, it is
con?scated.4 They are then placed in a cage while they wait for processing. After ?lling
out paperwork at a processing station, they are sent to a barber chair where they have
their hair cut off to approximately one-sixteenth of an inch. The inmate is then given a
shower.5 During this process, of?cers are yelling Obscenities at the inmates. While this
procedure should be one that promotes rehabilitation, it actually serves to strip
individuals of their individuality. This demoralizing routine seeks obedience but provides
no direction or guidance to the inmate; it serves to remind the inmates they are now
property of the state of Texas, and it is embedded in a correctional philosophy that strict
discipline is required of prisoners without any ethicanntegrity demands of prison staff.

Over the next few days, new intakes are given a battery of medical exams,
sociology reviews, and educational assessments. Prisoners who have sentences greater
than 50 years are typically removed from general population shortly after arrival at a

transfer facility, and their transfers from the facility are expedited. (Short-term inmates

 

2 Sometimes inmates have to walk across scorching or freezing concrete barefooted?
depending on what season they come to prison?because they come to prison without shoes from the
county jail.

3 Multiple inmates who were processed at Gurney Transfer Facility were greeted by of?cers
with the words, ?Welcome to hell.?

4 One inmate processed at Garza Transfer Facility stated that the of?cers made all the inmates
place their shoes in a pile on the ?oor. No con?scation papers were provided. The shoes were then moved
into a closet where inmate workers had access to them. Later, the inmate saw one of the workers wearing
his shoes.

5 During this time, female staff members are present at the processing stations and can view the
inmates, from entrance to the building when they are stripped to the time they are showered.

Responsible Prison Project 4

may serve up to two years at transfer facilities.) They are then sent to a diagnostic unit to
be assigned to a permanent unit by the State Classi?cation Committee.

Proposal:

The rehabilitation process must start on Day One of an inmate's prison
experience. This means when a prisoner steps from the bus into the entrance of the
transfer facility, they should be treated respectfully, which falls in line with DCJ ?s
mission statement and ethical policies for all o?icers. The process new intakes are about
to endure should be calmly explained to them: ?You will be strip-searched, and then you
will be provided a pair of boxers. Clothes and shoes will be provided shortly thereafter.
We will need you to fill out some paperwork, get a haircut, and take a shower. You will
spend a great deal of time waiting in a fenced?in area while this process is taking place.
We realize this is an uncomfortable process, but please be patient and it will go as
smoothly as possible. There is no reason for the o?icers to be rude and degrading, and
such behavior actually discourages rehabilitation.

An O?ender Mission Statement should be created. This mission statement
should be expressed to all inmates on Day One and should be emblazoned on their
Orientation Handbook. For example, ?Your mission while in prison is rehabilitation.
Use your time wisely, get all the education and job skills you can, and re?enter society
as a transformed person. Choose to do the right thing and your future will be
different This mission statement should be actively encouraged by all sta? members.

Intake is the first opportunity to rehabilitate, and as such this stage should be

taken more seriously. New arrivals should have counseling available and should receive

Responsible Prison Project 5

immediate training to prepare them for the prison culture and to inoculate them against
gang recruiters, extortion, and other threats. New arrivals should also be introduced to
family support groups like the Texas Inmate Families Association (TIFA). They should
receive their IT Ps and should be seen by a case worker who can advise them how to
begin working for release immediately. Those with long sentences should be given a
clear explanation of the choices that lie before them so they can choose to serve their

sentences with dignity and hope.

System Issues
The topics contained in this section are present in all units across the Texas
prison system. Topics that pertain only to individual units or that may not affect the

inmate population as a whole are contained in section entitled ?Unit Issues.?

Inmate-Of?cer Dynamic

When correctional officers treat inmates with respect, they are almost always
treated with respect in return. For example, one female of?cer always addressed others as
either ?sir? or ?Mr. So-and-So.? One evening an inmate attacked her for writing him up
when he was masturbating while watching her. Other inmates immediately intervened
and made sure the of?cer was okay. At the same unit, years later, a female of?cer who
consistently cussed at inmates, treated them and showed them no respect, got
slapped so hard after making an inappropriate comment that she dropped everything she
had in her hand. When inmates were asked why they did not intervene, they replied that

she got what she had coming to her.

Responsible Prison Project 6

Rude and disrespectful behavior from officers creates hostile work
environments for other of?cers, decreases public safety, promotes negative behavior
among the prisoners, and leads to more victims of crime during and after inmates are
released from prison. Humane treatment from of?cers and other staff members increases
public safety, promotes positive behavior among inmates, helps prisoners reintegrate back
into society, and reduces the number of new victims. Therefore, humane treatment of
inmates should be actively encouraged by prison administrators.6

Humane treatment of inmates is actually encouraged by TDCJ's mission
statement; however, the average of?cer has no clue what that mission statement says.
Most of?cers have the mission statement attached to a lanyard around their neck or a key
chain on their belt, but they still do not know what the mission statement says. Therefore,
they cannot achieve TDCJ's four-part goal, and treatment is lacking that is most
conducive to rehabilitation and reduced recidivism.

This does not mean that all of?cers are bad. Granted, most of?cers are not bad
of?cers, but most officers are also not good o?icers; the overwhelming majority are
indi?erent. There are distinct differences between these three. The bad officers do not
follow TDCJ policy and state that the rules are made for inmates, not for of?cers?that
policy is simply paperwork for the public to see when complaints are made. These

of?cers make up rules as they go, and an inmate never knows what to expect when

 

6 In 2010, at the Ellis Unit Furniture Factory, one inmate began addressing other inmates as
?sir? any time he interacted with them. He was instructed by the assistant plant manager to stop doing so.
The assistant plant manager told him, ?Nobody in white is to be addressed as 'sir.? They lost that right when
they were convicted of a crime. They are a?enders, and they should never forget that.? This is exactly the
type of thinking among prison staff that needs to be eliminated.

Responsible Prison Project 7

dealing with them. When a bad of?cer is assigned to a certain area, the tension
immediately rises, which consequently puts other staff members and inmates at risk.7

Good of?cers treat inmates with respect and make the prison environment
safer for staff and prisoners alike. These of?cers know and apply policy fairly for
themselves and the inmates. When these of?cers work a certain area, inmates are likely to
be respectful, to assist the of?cer with small tasks, and to abide by the rules. If an inmate
starts ?drawing heat? while a good of?cer is working, other inmates will usually
intervene so situations will not escalate. Good of?cers, likewise, have been known on
several occasions to intervene in confrontations between an of?cer and another inmate to
alleviate problems from intensifying. Sometimes these of?cers have also mediated in
situations between inmates so disagreements are sorted out without violence. Good
of?cers show compassion with ?rmness, increase the morale among both staff and
inmates, and use discipline effectively.8

Indifferent of?cers come to work just to collect a paycheck. They do not know
policy and do not try to learn it. They fail to take threats seriously, which endangers lives.
These of?cers frequently can be heard saying things like, ?I'm not going to overwork
myself. Just have a seat.? Indifferent of?cers silently and (probably) inadvertently
increase the recidivism rate and reduce rehabilitative activities. Some of these of?cers
have made the comment that inmates are ?job security? and that if they stop coming back

to prison then the of?cers would be out of a job. Indifference has a tendency to instill

 

7Bad o?icers sometimes also work visitation. When this happens, visitors are mistreated
because they are an ?extension? of the inmate.

8If a good o?icer writes a disciplinary case, inmates automatically assume the inmate who was
written up was in the wrong because they know the of?cer will not write a case arbitrarily.

Responsible Prison Project 8

hopelessness in inmates because they are made to feel that if the officers do not care, the
inmates should not either. Inmates also get frustrated trying to go to scheduled
programming, scheduled medical appointments, or scheduled Chaplaincy activities only
to be hindered by indifferent of?cers who do not want to do their jobs because they are
?being overworked.?

Wardens and upper-level administration generally do not deal with problem
o?cers. They maintain the mentality that having any of?cer is better than having no
of?cer. Throughout the system, wardens have been known to witness of?cers cussing out
inmates, yelling at them, etc., and the wardens fail to do anything. This implicitly
encourages negative behavior among TDCJ staff and seriously discredits their mission
statement and the objective of releasing rehabilitated human beings back into society.

Proposal:

DCJ ?3 mission statement should be placed prominently throughout each
prison unit. O?icers should be reminded at every shift brie?ng what their mission is: to
release rehabilitated people back into society. This should be the focus of their jobs. This
does not mean they must cater inmates; it does mean they must fulfill the mission
statement faithfully. O?icers need to understand the importance of the e?ects and
consequences of their own actions and how their actions as o?icers a?ect society as a
whole. The persistent treatment an inmate receives from corrections of?cials has an
impact on what kind of person will be released back into society.

Wardens need to deal with problem o?icers. It is important wardens

understand that leaving a bad o?icer in a position without administrative discipline has

Responsible Prison Project 9

serious ramifications that go beyond prison walls. Officers who indirectly threaten the
security of the institution and the safety of the public need to be dealt with.

When o?icers go to their annual in-service training, they should be tested on
their knowledge of policy. Officers who fail the test should go through special re-training
before being permitted to return to work inside the prison. O?icers who fail a test a
second time should have their employment terminated. The tests should be created in
such a way that the answers are not provided in the questions and that will require the
o?icers to know the policy and not be able to merely guess at it. O?icers should also be
given essay questions that address certain scenarios, to ensure an officer can deal with
situations in accordance with policy and not based on arbitrary decision making.

When o??icers are at work, they should be required to carry themselves with
true professionalism. This entails having a good work ethic that an inmate can learn
from. O?icers should work as they would want the inmate to work when he is released.

Policy should be re?written to require not only inmates to address staff
members as ?sir? and ?ma?am, but also for staff members to address the inmates in the
same manner. This action carries with it rehabilitative qualities and presses an inmate to
begin acting as he would when he is released.9 This requirement would also help the
officer to bear in mind that the person before them is worthy of respect as well and is a
person who will one day rejoin society. This simple action helps officers fulfill TDCJ's
mission statement by promoting positive behavior among o?enders and reintegrating

them into society.

 

9 In Victor Hugo's epic tome Les Miserables, the protagonist notes that addressing a convict as
?sir? is a drink of water to a dying man.

Responsible Prison Project 10
Visitation

Studies based on reduced recidivism consistently show that visitation is one of
the most effective methods of helping to rehabilitate an inmate. TDCJ recognizes this.10
Therefore, much attention should be given by Texas prison administrators to making
Visitation as comfortable as possible, without violating security.

While Visitation rules are uniform, the application of them throughout
all Texas prisons is not. TIFA performed a survey of families who have visited their loved
ones in more than one Texas prison. The overwhelming majority of those surveyed
agreed that visitation rules are applied differently at the various units and that
interpretation of the rules is subject to unit administration.

Not only are the rules applied differently throughout TDCJ, the facilities and
the refreshments available are not the same either. For example, Wynne Unit does not
have outside visitation, even though it has the facilities for it. Darrington Unit's non-
contact visitation area is not conducive to visitation because it is extremely noise due to
the lack of echo-absorbent material on the walls and ceilings and the Plexiglas covering
the visitation screens, and the same is generally true for all TDCJ units built before 1987.
Wynne Unit sells ice cream in vending machines, but most other units do not. Some units
have sandwiches and salads available for purchase, but most units have only junk food.

The price of the refreshments is a serious issue also. For example, a recent

visitor at Darrington Unit paid $1.50 for a ?Nutty Bar?; this same item is sold in the unit

 

1? TDCJ's visitation policy states, ?visitation is an integral component of the rehabilitation
process and every effort will be made to ensure that visits are conducted under the least restrictive protocol
available.? This statement is untrue, however. When compared with the visitation rules and regulations of
other state prison systems and the federal prison system, TDCJ is one of the most restrictive in its protocol.

Responsible Prison Project 11

commissary at a price of six for $1 .45?which equates to a price discrepancy of more
than 600%. Without question, the items sold at visitation are another example of price-
gouging loved ones of inmates. This also raises the question of whether TDCJ is pro?ting
from these vending sales.

Another problem with visitation is overcrowding. Many families, especially
during holiday weekends, may have to wait up to several hours for space availability
before they can visit their incarcerated loved one. This discourages families from visiting.
Part of this problem is the limited space available and TDCJ's unwillingness to expand
visitation areas, and part of the problem is that visitation is only permitted on Saturday
and Sunday.

Due to the size and expanse of Texas, most families have to travel several
hundred miles round trip just to see their loved one for two hours.11 This trip is quite
expensive, averaging approximately $200 for gas, food, photos, etc., for inmate
supporters to see their loved one. As a result, unless an inmate is fortunate enough to be
in close proximity to his loved one, he does not receive visits regularly.

Proposal:

Visitation areas, especially contact areas, should be signi?cantly expanded.
Currently, all pro?ts from inmate commissary are to be used to fund educational
and recreational programs for inmates. Each year: however, there is a surplus of at least

$5 million of those pro?ts that goes back into the State is general fund. Instead of placing

 

11TDCJ acknowledges in its Visitation Rules and Regulations that ?while it is recognized that
unit assignments may create hardships for visiting, assignments are based on considerations other than
offender or family convenience.?

Responsible Prison Project 12

the funds of inmates' loved ones into the general fund, this money could instead be used
to expand visitation areas by the purchase of portable buildings and/or providing a
larger outside visitation area. 12

All visits should be extended from two hours to four hours in length, regardless
of distance traveled. This would encourage visitors to drive the long distances?200
miles one way in many instances?to maintain a bond with their incarcerated loved one.
The objection regarding overcrowding would be moot if TDCJ would use commissary
profits to expand visitation areas.

Considering TDCJ operates on the ?least restrictive protocol visitation
policy, all inmates who maintain an S3 trusty classU?ication status for more than one year
should have all visits as contact visits instead of contact with only their immediate
families as the policy is now. 13 The current policy states that only S2?classified inmates
(which are outside trusty inmates, housed in a trusty camp) are eligible for all visits to be
contact. More than 60% of is population, howeven are violent o?enders and do not
qualify for such classification; the highest classi?cation they can earn is SS. These
inmates, however, are usually well-behaved. Therefore, an inmate earns an S3 status
and maintains that status for at least a year?thereby reflecting proper ?institutional
adjustment"?he should quali?/ for contact visits with all of his visitors. This would fall
in line with the ?least restrictive protocol DCJ claims to embrace. Other prison

systems use an even lesser-restrictive protocol than this proposal. TDCJ would do well to

 

12 Jennifer Erschabek, executive director of TIFA, is currently discussing this possibility with
Texas legislators for consideration in the 2017 session.

13 Exceptions would be made for inmates with visitation restrictions, such as no contact with
children.

Responsible Prison Project 13

implement their policies. Doing so would promote positive behavior among the o?ender
population and help reintegrate o?enders into society by encouraging visitation most
conducive to rehabilitation, according to studies on this subject.

Visitation days should be expanded beyond just the weekends. If visitation
were also allowed on Monday and Friday, for example, the overcrowding on Saturday
and Sunday would be signi?cantly alleviated. This would also further encourage visits
with the inmates since employees that must work weekends would have the opportunity to
visit during the week. DCJ should look at the many other prison systems that do this
and implement their practices.

The prison visitation areas should provide wider: healthier food selections at
all prisons. That may require the Legislature to enact laws requiring fruit, vegetable, and
sandwich machines placed in all visitation areas, similar to legislation for school
districts. Also, if TDCJ pro?ts from vending sales, these kickbacks should be
discontinued to decrease prices of vending machine snacks and to encourage inmate
visits with no pro?t to DCJ ?s general fund.

DCJ should also consider permitting families to purchase food to be
delivered during the visit. Families could order food from Domino's or Jimmy John's, for
example, pay for it before they enter the prison gate, and have it delivered to the prison
during the visit. The meal could be run through the x?ray machine and inspected visually
to ensure no contraband is present before being handed over to the visitor.? Other prison

systems permit such activities without security encroachments.

 

14 TDCJ will resist this because it is labor intensive. O?icers are paid to do a job, however,
like any other employee and should therefore have no problem earning the money they are paid.

Responsible Prison Project 14

Family activity opportunities, such as board games, should be provided by
in the visitation areas. Currently, children are provided coloring books and
crayons, so providing board games should not be problematic. Such family activities
should be actively encouraged.

Photos capture memories, and they are cherished by inmates and visitors
alike. Currently, photos are taken by DCJ sta? one weekend per month from November
through August and every weekend during September and October; at a cost of $3 per
picture. This policy should be changed to permit photos to be taken every weekend so all
inmates have the same opportunity to take photos with their loved ones.

Most o?icers treat the visitors with respect, but some treat the visitors as
extensions of the inmate and therefore felonious themselves. O?icers who may be
scheduled to work visitation should be trained in how to treat visitors; they should be
reminded that visitors are non-criminals in the criminal justice equation and should be
treated with respect at all times. Visitors should therefore be allowed some avenue to
make a formal complaint against o?icers working visitation, and once the o?icer
receives three similar complaints, they should be permanently restricted ?om working
visitation and proper administrative actions should be taken against them by DCJ.

While it is unlikely that TDCJ would seriously review this idea, conjugal visits
should be considered. According to a study done by Yale University, conjugal visits are
permitted in some form in approximately 20% of all American prison systems (nine out of
?fty-one, including the federal system). Conjugal visits would potentially reduce sexual

misconduct in prison, and would also strengthen the family bond.

Responsible Prison Project 15

Video visitation should be permitted for visitors who are unable to drive long

distances to see their loved ones, but this should in no way replace physical visits.

Chaplaincy

Chaplaincy programs are vital to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Many good
programs and incentives for rehabilitation are currently available throughout TDCJ
chapels: parenting classes, anger-management classes, Family Day events, talent shows,
etc. In 2015, TDCJ implemented a monumental effort at using inmates as ?eld ministers.
These men are graduates of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at
Darrington Unit. Upon graduation, teams of four men are sent to other maximum-security
prisons with the objective of changing the culture of the prison through moral
rehabilitation. This program is working well, gaining positive media attention across
America, and it has placed ?eld ministry teams at thirteen prisons across Texas so far.

But all is not well with the Chaplaincy in TDCJ. For instance, chaplains have
too much discretion in what programs to allow at their units. Some chaplains do not want
marriage seminars or mentor programs at their units. Other chaplains may allow these
programs but do not want ministries such as Mike Barber Ministries to have crusades.

Most chaplains truly care about the condition of the inmates in prison and want
them to be rehabilitated, but chaplains are judged in prison for several reasons.
First, the negative attitude and scandalous character of some of their inmate clerks puts
the chaplains in a bad light. Second, chaplains notoriously stay in their of?ce and do not

mingle among the inmate population to have a more far-reaching in?uence. Third, some

Responsible Prison Project 16

chaplains are judged because of their own negative attitudes.

Negative attitudes by chaplains toward inmates and their loved ones have
detrimental effect upon the mission of both TDCJ and the Chaplaincy department itself.
This type of behavior from chaplains severely discredits the whole Chaplaincy department
for that unit and causes people to shy away from Chaplaincy programs.

Chaplains are primarily responsible for notifying inmates of the death of loved
ones, but this duty sometimes either falls into the laps of security or is dealt with
incorrectly by chaplains. Many inmates? families have come to see them after speaking to
a chaplain about a death in the family and assuming the inmate had been noti?ed, only to
discover he was unaware of the death. This creates more tension between the inmate
population and Chaplaincy, and it sends the message that the chaplain is unconcerned
about the inmate's loss.

Proposal:

A chaplain?s discretion should be limited. When programs and crusades are
permitted by TDCJ policy, the chaplain should not maintain discretion about whether to
allow such a program but should schedule the program at a reasonable date upon
request of the respective ministry. Chaplains should frequently be reminded they have
been hired to help facilitate inmate rehabilitation and are to encourage as many
programs and activities as possible to help achieve that goal.

Chapel workers and inmate volunteers (ushers, choir members, sermon
presenters, etc.) should be required to have a virtuous reputation in the inmate

community. Since they are representatives of the chaplain and are looked to by other

Responsible Prison Project 17

inmates for guidance and as leaders, these people should not be in a chapel position if
they are not a person of integrity.

Many of the chaplains rarely perform baptisms and communion for the
Christian community. Since these are tenets of the Christian faith, they should be
scheduled regularly.

Many Texas prisons either do not have a chapel or have a chapel that is
basically a small room. These are typically prisons that were built after I 98 7, in a
prison-boom era that focused on punishment instead of reform. Some of these new
prisons have had large chapels built with donations from community volunteers, but not
all of them. TDCJ o??icials should encourage the building of chapels at the new units and
the restoration of dilapidated chapels at older units, and the chapels should be looked at
as one of the primary places for moral reformation.

TDCJ should use the ?eld ministry program in a variety of ways. DCJ should
use the ?eld ministers as mentors in the Texas Youth Commission (TY C). Field ministers
who are assigned to prisons located near TY facilities could be transported to the
facility one or two days a week to help stop the criminal justice cycle and help
rehabilitate the youthful o??enders before they ever make it to prison.

Field ministers could help to alleviate the burden on the Chaplaincy
department. Prison units that have more than one paid chaplain could reduce the number
to one and allow the field ministers to peiform Chaplaincy duties that do not require
mainframe computer access or authority over another individual. Field ministers are

already being used for death notices and grief counseling, among other sensitive things.

Responsible Prison Project 18

Notification of family deaths should be made uniform. Death notices should be
verifiable. Policy should be written to require the person noti?zing an inmate of a death
to sign and date the form and also have the inmate being notified sign and date the form.
If for some reason security has to do the death notice, they should be required to fill out
this paperwork as well. If the responsible party fails to notij?z the inmate of the death,
they should be held administratively responsible with proper administrative disciplinary
action taken.

DCJ should encourage chaplains and re-entry departments to coordinate
with churches in various communities to welcome inmates into their congregations as
part of the reintegration process. This would encourage inmates to surround themselves
with positive in?uences and not return to a life of crime or the criminal environment.

Some kind of hotline should be made available for inmates' loved ones to file
complaints about unit chaplains. Repeated complaints should result in administrative
disciplinary action against the chaplain. This would serve as an incentive for the
chaplain to maintain professional behavior that will most likely influence rehabilitation
among the inmate population and therefore reduce recidivism.

DCJ ?s Chaplaincy department should implement faith-based activities in all
ad?seg areas and coordinate these activities with security administration. These activities
should include permitting general population inmates approved by the Unit
Classification Committee or field ministers to perform talent shows; educational
seminars; counseling seminars for anger: depression, and suicidal issues; Christmas

caroling; and other faith-based initiatives.

Responsible Prison Project 19

Commissary Issues

Commissary is one of the most cherished privileges inmates have.
Approximately 40% of TDCJ's population is indigent, yet they still bene?t from
commissary, either by ?'iends who provide them with things or as payment for some kind
of ?hustle,? such as artwork. Most prison chow halls serve food that is poorly prepared,
that tastes bad, and that most of the inmates do not want to eat. Commissary provides the
ability to buy alternative foods to supplement or replace prison chow.

Unfortunately, commissary also preserves the black market because of its
limited selection. For example, since the prison commissaries do not sell any kind of
chlorinated powder, such as Tide or Ajax as they used to, inmates turn to the black market
and buy stolen bleach and powder detergent from people who work in the laundry.
Likewise, commissary will not sell food seasonings such as onion powder, garlic,
dehydrated onions and bell peppers, etc, so inmates buy these stolen goods from the
kitchen. As a result, the stolen goods do not get put into the general population?s laundry
or food, and negative behavior (theft and the purchase of stolen goods) continues among
the prison population. Another factor to consider is that these goods are stolen at the
expense of the taxpayer.

The items sold in unit commissan'es are overwhelmingly unhealthy. Granted,
there are some healthy foods such as peanuts, oatmeal, trail mix, and protein meal
replacements, but there are no ?uits and vegetables. This compounds an issue because it
increases the costs for medical care in the long term.

Inmate-made goods that have been produced in various factories run by Texas

Responsible Prison Project 20

Correctional Industries (TCI) are sold in the commissary: boxers, greeting cards, colored
paper, commissary bags, cups, liquid detergent, gloves, shorts, shower shoes, socks
spiral pads, spoons, blank envelopes, T-shirts, thermal tops and bottoms, typing paper,
wash cloths, writing tablets, and writ envelopes. These items are made with free inmate
labor at a lower quality than name-brand items and sold at a higher-cost than name-brand
items, all at the expense of inmates' loved ones. TDCJ commissaries have not always sold
TCI items. This has largely emerged over the last 10-12 years. Before that time, all
products were contracted with free?world vendors and had better quality. For example,

erzees T?shirts were sold, as was Tide and Ajax. In October 2007, TDCJ policy changed
stating that inmates could no longer have colored stationery mailed to them from a
vendor. Now it is sold in commissary at an exorbitant price, after being produced by
inmates in TCI, and is permitted once again by policy. In March 2014, TDCJ policy
stopped all stationery from being sent in by a vendor; now it must be purchased in the
commissary at a higher price than average market value a 50-sheet writing tablet is
sold for $1 .80)?and it is produced with free inmate labor in TCI factories.

Proposal:

TDCJ commissaries should sale goods that are regularly stolen from unit
kitchens and laundry departments. DCJ recently stopped selling a decent powder
detergent called Heritage, and immediately black market sales for laundry detergent and
bleach increased in the inmate population. Items that have been sold by commissary
before?seasoning, powder detergent with stain remover; etc?should be sold in unit

commissaries. These items should be contracted with free-world vendors, and the items

Responsible Prison Project 21

should be maintained as a permanent good in the commissaries, much like Ramen soups
and squeeze cheese are. Contracts with vendors who provide these goods should not be
allowed to expire by commissary directors or other administration responsible for
maintaining contracts.

Commissary directors should coordinate with other TDCJ departments such as
medical personnel to determine what items could be sold that would promote the good
health of inmates. For example, inmates overwhelmingly agree that if fruits and
vegetables were sold in commissary, they would buy them regularly. DCJ will object
that inmates would make wine if fruit were sold in commissary. However; inmates make
wine without fruit by using fruit juice, mint sticks, raisins stolen from the kitchen, and
other black-market items procured in prison. Trying to eliminate the exceptional
activities of a few by prohibiting healthy items for all serves no purpose. The wine is still
being made! Raw or pre-packaged vegetables and fresh ?uit?not the fruit saturated in
sugary syrup?should be sold in commissary. Inmates would buy apples, oranges,
onions, salads, pre-packaged sandwiches (similar to vending machines), etc., by the sack
load if they were available. At units where horticulture classes are offered, inmates buy
black-market salads every day because they are not available in commissary. Inmates
would eat healthier if given the option.

All CI products should be eliminated from TDCJ commissaries. It is
unconscionable that inmates are forced to make items with free labor, then turn around
and buy those items from commissary at a higher cost than on the free market.

Furthermore, these CI items are sold only to pro?t and policy has been subtly re-

Responsible Prison Project 22

written throughout the years to ensure DCJ would pro?t the most while inmates? loved
ones pay the expense. All items sold in commissary should be contracted with an outside
vendor to avoid purposely selling lower-quality products at a higher price than what
name-brand items would be sold in commissaries, only to benefit DCJ.

Special-purchase items such as shoes, typewriters, radios, and fans are sold in
commissaries through the ?blue-slip process. A request for purchase known as a ?blue-
slip is filled out and turned in to the commissary sta??. Once it is processed, inmates can
buy the item. Blue?slip items should be expanded to include products such as see-through
in?atable air mattresses, similar to those found in a swimming pool. Inmates would
immediately buy these because the mattresses currently made by and provided to
inmates for ?ee are bulky, cotton-stu?ing mattresses that are lumpy and cause back
problems. Selling air mattresses would bene?t DCJ ?nancially, would provide an option
to inmates, and would be easier for o?icers to shake down. Pillows should also be sold in
commissaries; currently, pillows are sewn into the mattresses made by CI and cause
neck problems. Other blue-slip items should include personal-size televisions, MP3
players (which are sold without issue in other prison systems), e-readers, etc.

Policy should be implemented to put a time limit on processing blue slips
submitted by inmates. 15 At most units, this process is completed within 30 days. At some

units, however; it can take many months. At Darrington Unit, for example, inmates

 

15 The process is as follows: An inmate submits the request when he goes to commissary. The
commissary manager forwards the request to the unit property of?cer, who approves or denies it. If denied,
it is returned to the inmate with a reason for denial. If approved, the request is sent to the warden or major
for ?nal purchase approval. Once approved, it is sent back to the commissary manager to notify the inmate
to pick up his requested item.

Responsible Prison Project 23

typically must wait 6-12 months to be able to purchase these blue-slip items. The reason
for this is that somewhere in the process, presumably at the commissary manager level,
someone is holding the requests and not processing them. Policy should be implemented

that requires the process to be completed within 60 days.

Computers and Technology

TDCJ does not allow its inmates to possess computers of any kind. In fact, the
only kind of word processor TDCJ allows inmates to purchase ?'om commissary is an
electric typewriter manufactured by Swintec, with no memory capability, at a cost of
$225~?more than a Dell Optiplex computer with over a gigabyte of memory and loaded
with Microsoft Of?ce.16 The only computer access TDCJ allows inmates is for clerks
who work in prison departments (industry, maintenance, Chaplaincy, etc.) and limited
access for educational purposes for inmates enrolled in certain vocational/educational
programs.17 Technology restrictions are not limited to computers, however. Texas inmates
are also not allowed access to MP3 players, e?readers, iPods, or any other current
technology.

Today, society is dominated by technology. There is no getting around this

reality. Technology is so prevalent, in fact, the general mail system is collapsing and the

 

16 It should be noted that this expense is levied against prisoners' supporters since Texas does
not pay its inmates. These supporters typically are ??om the lowest wage-earning class in America and are
already paying the inmates' $100 medical co-pay yearly (over $5 million in 2014), whatever money they
send the inmate for commissary (over $114 million in 2014), and tens of millions of dollars in outrageous
phone rates to stay connected to the inmates whom they love and support (more than $34 million in 2014).

17 Sex offenders are even further restricted. They are not permitted to have jobs assignments as
clerks, to work around non?uniform female staff members (females must be correctional officers), or to
have access to computers in any job assignment. This categorical restriction seems to be based on the
assumption that sex offenders can use computers or clerk jobs to re?offend.

Responsible Prison Project 24

United States Postal Service is failing ?nancially because people use e-mail and text
messaging rather than the mail system. All job applications are now done electronically
online. Smartphones and the Internet are priorities for daily living in a free society.

Therefore, keeping inmates barricaded from computer access and other
technology creates a barrier to successful re-entry into society. When an inmate is
released, they should be familiar with the technology they are expected to interact with
on a daily basis. (This is especially true for those who have been incarcerated longer than
the Intemet and smartphones have been around.) But this is not possible when they are
systematically prohibited access from such technology.

Restricted access also interferes with communication with inmates' loved ones.
Many inmate supporters have expressed they would communicate with prisoners more
often if they could send and receive e-mails. Granted, in Texas, JPay.com is contracted
with TDCJ so that loved ones can send e-mails to inmates, which are then printed out by
the unit mailrooms and delivered to the inmates; however, this is problematic for two
reasons. First, inmates cannot return e-mails to loved ones, even though .I Pay. com has
small electronic tablets available for this purpose and are sold in Ohio and other prisons.

Second, supporters of Texas inmates have to pay the cost of a stamp (currently
$0.47) for each printed page they send to an inmate, including the same amount for each
photo, which is printed in black and white. The curious thing about this cost is that it is
not uniform in all prison systems. In Washington, for example, the cost is only $0.06 for
each page/photo. This leads to the conclusion that TDCJ is receiving kickbacks from this

service, much like TDCJ receives a 40% kickback from phone rates.

Responsible Prison Project 25

Proposal:

Systematic technology restrictions should be lifted. Texas inmates should be
allowed to purchase tablets or laptops (and small printers) that are comparable to the
size of a typewriter. The plastic casing should be clear for security purposes. Information
Technology is advanced enough that filters could be applied by IT professionals
and run through its servers. This would provide DCJ access to an inmate 's search
history, contacts, and viewing, among other things, and it would also reduce the labor
load on the mailroom, as well as the re?entry and communication barriers erected by
current DCJ policies.

Access to various technology could be tiered for various custody levels.
Administrative segregation and close custody, for example, could be restricted to sending
and receiving e-mails only, but they could have access to pre-loaded educational and
rehabilitative materials. Trusty-status inmates could have full technology access. Custody
levels between the two could be moderately restricted. Not only would such access
bolster reintegration success and thus reduce recidivism, it could also be used as an
incentive for inmates to stay out of trouble and work towards rehabilitation. This would
make the prison environment safer for sta? and prisoners and would therefore provide
greater public safety.

Other prison systems permit some kind of access to technology already. Many
allow access to MP3 players, iPods with no wi-fi connection, CD players, etc. Ohio
permits its inmates to purchase JPay tablets for approximately $50 and use them to send

and receive e-mails from registered non-prisoners and to download music onto the tablet.

Responsible Prison Project 26

he federal prison system operates on a system known as an e-mail
program so offenders can send and receive e-mails. Florida allows its inmates to
purchase Kindle Fires, replete with full Internet access. Texas could coordinate with
these prison systems and apply the same principles to Texas prisons.

Since smartphones are the mainstay of technology these days, some kind of
simulation program should be made available for inmates so they are familiar with cell
phone apps upon release. Many software developers would gladly provide such a service.

An objection could feasibly be raised about the cost of monitoring an inmate's
Internet access. Currently, all pro?ts from DCJ 's inmate commissary are to be used to
fund educational and recreational programs for inmates. Each year however, there is a
surplus of at least $5 million of those profits that goes back into the State's general fund.
Instead of placing the funds of inmate ?s loved ones into the general fund, this money

could instead be used to monitor inmates' technology access and use.

Food Services

TDCJ wastes a ton of money, time, and effort on foods that are never eaten.
For example, most inmates will get squash, eggplant, and other foods on their tray but
will not eat them because they either are poorly prepared, unseasoned, or taste bad. These
foods end up in the slop barrel. If the intent of TDCJ is to feed the pigs at the pig barns,
then their objective is met. If the objective is to feed the inmates, their efforts and money
are wasted.

Prison food is notoriously heavy on carbohydrates because it is cheaper to

Responsible Prison Project 27

provide higher calorie content by using them. The money saved on food budgets,
however, is spent in medical costs later.

Prison kitchens are consistently dirty and vermin infested. Roaches and rats are
prevalent in all Texas prison kitchens. This leads to questionable sanitary conditions for
the proper preparation of foods. No person in the free-world would eat food from prison
if they saw the conditions in which it was prepared.

Equipment for cleaning eating utensils and trays are not sufficient to get them
clean. The machinery used in the kitchen sculleries routinely breaks down, is old, and
needs to be replaced in most prisons. Beyond this, the powder detergent and bleach are
stolen by the inmates and the plasticware is therefore not properly sanitized because
officers will not ensure the chemicals are used for cleaning instead of making it to the
black market.

Workers in prison kitchens receive little to no training in the proper and
sanitary preparation and handling of foods.

Some inmate cooks are transferred to Eastham Unit to be trained at the
culinary arts school there. But when they are returned to their units of assignment, instead
of being used as a cook for the inmates, they are then used as cooks for the of?cers so
that the of?cers' food is better prepared.

Proposal:

Prison kitchens should be held to the same standards as any free-world
restaurant when it undergoes inspection. If the kitchen cannot pass inspection, it should

be shut down until it can. Preparation of food should be sanitary and in clean conditions.

Responsible Prison Project 28

Healthier food selections should be made. More raw fruits and vegetables,
salads, etc, should be made available. This could be done by DCJ growing the foods in
the hundreds of thousands of acres of farm lands it has throughout the state. Healthier
food would result in lower medical costs in the long run.

Food should be better prepared so less of it is wasted. Darrington Unit's
kitchen captain (Captain Lance) is exemplary in food preparation while keeping the
budget low. His management should be used as a model for all prison kitchens.

When inmate cooks are sent for culinary arts training, upon return to their
units of assignment they should be prohibited from being assigned as o?icer cooks.

Scullery equipment that does not properly clean plasticware should be
replaced. O??icers should ensure that cleaning chemicals issued for cleaning trays and
utensils are used for that purpose and not stolen, even if they must put the chemicals in

the machines themselves.

Laundry Services

The biggest complaints from inmates about prison laundry are about the lack
of clean clothes and the unavailability of proper clothing sizes. Inmates who work in key
areas?clerks, front of?ce workers, etc?have their clothes washed separate from all the
other clothes and they therefore stay white and clean. Generally, though, inmate clothing
is overstuffed in industrial washers and some of the clothes barely even get wet because
of the washer being overstuffed. The outcome is that clothes are handed out that are badly

stained and that are still dirty, sometimes still smelling like the last person that wore

Responsible Prison Project 29
them. Compounding that issue is the fact that washing powder and bleach are hardly used

because it is stolen by inmates to be sold on the black market. Unavailability of proper
clothes sizes is the result of poor management and the lack of a proper inventory being
kept. This in itself is the result of inadequate training for non-inmate laundry staff.

Proposal:

Laundry o??icers should ensure inmates are not over?lling the washers.
O??icers should also ensure inmates are not stealing the soap and bleach by putting the
chemicals in the washers themselves?thereby promoting positive behavior. When clothes
are passed out that are still dirty and clearly have not been properly cleaned, the o?icers
on that shift should be held accountable and face proper administrative action.

One remedy to this problem would be to assign personal sets of clothes to each
inmate. This is done ejj?ectively at Ellis Unit. Each inmate is provided three sets of clothes
every six months. A box number is issued to the inmate for his clothes to be stored in.
When he goes to shower a clean set is pulled from his box and given to him. Nobody
wears the inmate's clothes but him. If the clothes are damaged, it is the inmate's

responsibility. This system should be made policy system-wide.

Medical

The greatest hindrance to Texas inmates seeking medical care at this time is the
$100 co-pay. Every one of the writers of this proposal have put off requesting medical
care because of the exorbitant co-pay. Texas prisoners do not get paid, so this fee is

deducted from whatever meager gifts are given by their loved ones. As a result, medical

Responsible Prison Project 30

issues become worse and are often compounded when a prisoner refuses to seek
treatment due to cost. Texas inmates also overwhelmingly agree that the quality of care
has decreased since 2011, when the $100 co-pay was implemented.

Another disincentive that hinders Texas prisoners from seeking medical
treatment for serious health issues is the extremely long wait time. When an inmate sends
a request for medical treatment, he is sent a lay-in, which is basically a noti?cation of a
scheduled appointment. At most Texas prisons, all medical lay-ins are scheduled for the
morning, yet the medical personnel does not see them for many hours. It is not unusual
for inmates to wait ?ve to eight hours before being seen, and sometimes they will wait
this long only to be rescheduled. This scheduling con?ict causes overcrowded waiting
areas, hostility among the inmates waiting, and serves only as a general disincentive for
seeking medical care.

Another negative issue is the lack of compassion from medical staff. Granted,
this is also an issue outside of prison, but Texas prisoners generally question why they
should submit for medical care when the staff will typically assume the inmate is lying
and treat him like nothing is wrong. This discourages inmates from seeking medical care.

Some medical care cannot be provided on?site, and the inmate must be
transferred to a regional medical facility or to John Sealy hospital in Galveston for
treatment. The process of ?catching medical chain,? being transferred to another location
for medical treatment, is harrowing. This entails leaving the inmate's unit of assignment
early in the morning, getting to a transit unit for an overnight stay or longer, and then

going to the medical appointment. The trip back is the same. The transit cells, however,

Responsible Prison Project 31

are ?lthy. They are rarely cleaned. They do not have mattresses. The inmates are not
given toilet paper. The food in transit is cold, poorly prepared, and of smaller quantity
than usual meals. TDCJ, of course, will say this is untrue; but unannounced inspections
would prove it is true?at every transit unit, in every transit living area, without fail.

It is normal practice for an inmate to go to John Seal hospital for off-site
treatment and receive medical orders by the medical doctors there, only to return to his
unit of assignment and have the medical staff refuse to honor the doctor's orders because
the order for a certain medication was too expensive, for example. As a result, a less-
effective treatment will be given to an inmate based on cost factors rather than health
factors.

Proposal:

The Legislature needs to repeal the $100 co-pay. Inmates are not paid
individuals, and therefore, their loved ones are left to foot the bill for their medical care
even though the inmates are wards of the state. Repealing the co-pay and returning to a
$3 co-pay each visit will encourage inmates to seek medical treatment when necessary
rather than delay due to exorbitant fees. Delaying medical treatment only costs the state
more in the long run.

Unit medical sta? should be required to schedule medical appointments in an
e?icient manner so that the average wait time would not exceed two hours. Darrington
Unit's medical care is not exemplary, but their scheduling can be a model. Inmates rarely
wait more than 20 minutes to be processed through the taking of Vitals and placed in a

line to see the provider. DCJ should coordinate training to use Darrington as a model

Responsible Prison Project 32

for medical-appointment scheduling.

If inmates have to stay overnight in transit somewhere en route for medical

appointments, they should not be required to sleep on steel bunks with no mattresses, in

?lthy cells that have not been cleaned for long periods of time. They should be given
quality food. Transit wings should be inspected unannounced by health inspectors.

Medical sta?" should be trained to be compassionate. They should assume the
inmate is telling the truth about their medical problem until an examination proves
otherwise. This base assumption would change how medical sta? addresses each medical
visit. Compassion would go a long way. In short, medical sta?r should care about those
they are treating.

DCJ ?s contracted medical personnel should work closely with TDCJ
dieticians and TDCJ's commissary department to work towards a healthier menu in the
chow halls and healthier options in commissaiy. This would encourage healthier eating
and would potentially lower health problems long-term.

DCJ should also figure out a way to encourage wellness. If the focus of
DCJ 's medical department were on wellness, as opposed to just treating sickness, the

face of DCJ ?s population would change dramatically. UT MB could have a physical
trainer host a seminar at each unit two or four times per year on the recreation yards or
in the gym. They could show people how to exercise, discuss the bene?ts of proper diet
and exercise, and encourage the prisoners to live healthy lives. If UT MB would hire one

trainer for each region (six total), the money saved on medical issues due to bad diet and

exercise would prove 

Responsible Prison Project 33

DCJ should encourage recreation. Currently, recreation is one of the ?rst
things to be canceled with the excuse of sta? shortage. But when this excuse is presented,
o??icers can routinely be seen just ?hanging out at desks, not doing any work.
Recreation should be considered a programmatic activity?something that is
rehabilitative?and not just something that takes up time. Some units only have
recreation once or twice a month, and some ad-seg inmates have not been o?ered
recreation for months at a time. Mandating the availability of recreation, coupled with
UTMB hiring a physical trainer for each region for quarterly training purposes, would
help reduce medical expenditures.

In conjunction with encouraging recreation, should produce a
?tness booklet that shows in-cell exercises and discusses the importance of proper eating.
Obesity and bad health are not just issues in society; they also a?ect prisoners. A ?tness
booklet that details how weight is gained, how weight is lost, the amount of calories
burned for each exercise at various of time, and other such information should be
issued to all inmates upon reception. This booklet should also be made available upon
request from the unit medical departments.

One final issue that needs to be corrected is the current policy that prohibits
inmates from being given dentures unless he loses 40% of his body weight. Many inmates
in Texas have no teeth and must either ?gum? their food or be placed on a liquid diet.
Inmates who are serving long sentences are treated no di?erently than those who are
about to be released from prison. It in unconscionable that human beings are forced to

live without teeth for decades and are told they must subsist on a liquid diet unless and

Responsible Prison Project 34
until they lose 40% of their body weight. 18 This policy should be changed immediately.

Disciplinary

Inmates of TDCJ know most disciplinary proceedings are effectively kangaroo
courts: if an of?cer wrote a disciplinary case against an inmate, it is going to be processed
and the inmate is going to be found guilty of the infraction, regardless of the evidence in
his favor.19 Supervisors who run the disciplinary hearings are apt to say things along the
lines of, believe what you are saying, but if my officer wrote it, I'm going to run it.?
The assumption is that if the supervisor dismisses the case or ?nds the inmate not guilty,
the supervisor will be considered ?inmate friendly? and is not showing of?cer solidarity.2O
This thinking and behavior undermines a belief in fairness and promotes hostility
between of?cers and inmates.

For major disciplinary proceedings, inmates are provided a ?counsel
substitute,? who is supposed to investigate the allegations of the charging officer, talk to
witnesses in preparation of the disciplinary proceeding, and cross-examine adversarial
witnesses during the court hearing. This does not occur. Counsel substitutes are TDCJ

employees and work with, not against, the charging of?cers and the disciplinary captain.

 

?8 This would mean a man weighing 200 pounds would have to drop to 120. Awoman
weighing 160 must Whittle down to a mere 96 pounds. This should actually be unconstitutional.

?9 This does not excuse the fact that most of the cases written are legitimate and inmates usually
are guilty. The discussion here is to be generally considered and not to be taken as a hasty generalization.

2" Many officers have worn hats emblazoned with the slogan, ?Taking Care of Our Own? on
the back of it. This slogan ?ies in the face of TDCJ's mission statement and does nothing to facilitate
rehabilitation, promote positive behavior among o?'enders, or provide public safety. It actually creates an us
versus them mentality and encourages hostility between law enforcement and convicted felons. Justice, not
solidarity, should be the watchword for criminal justice environments.

Responsible Prison Project 35

Proposal:

First and foremost, disciplinary actions should be processed with fairness. If
an inmate has evidence of his innocence, this evidence should be investigated and
considered before conclusions are made. If the evidence is in the inmate 's favor: the case
should be dismissed and the inmate found not guilty. A disciplinary case should never be
processed and punishment levied simply to maintain o??icer solidarity. Doing so has far-
reaching consequences that go beyond the prison walls. For example, inmates are
conditioned to believe the ?system? is always going to work against them, which will fuel
animosity towards authority and may actually contribute to further criminal activity,
decreased public safety, and the creation of more victims in society and in prison.

Second, disciplinary proceedings should be reformative and not strictly
punitive. In the criminal court system, a person may plead guilty to a felony and be
sentenced to so many years deferred adjudication; if the probationary period is
successfully completed and terms fulfilled, the o??ense is removed ?om the person's
record. The same idea could be applied to prison disciplinary proceedings. If an inmate
pleads guilty to an in?action, rather than have a fighting case on his record, if he
successfully completes a 12-week anger management class, the case will not be held
against him. If an inmate refuses to obey a direct order, he can go to a ?Bad Ideas for
Morons class. While this may be a bit humorous to the reader, the idea is sound.

Furthermore, some disciplinary rules should be re-visited. For instance, the
zero tolerance policies for inmate ?ghting should not be taken out of context. A person

should maintain the right to defend himself against a predator without fear of retribution

Responsible Prison Project 36

from the o?icers via a disciplinary action. Evidence of self-defense must be present, but
this option should remain open. Common sense must be permissible during disciplinary
proceedings.

The Disciplinary Hearing Officer's Manual should once again be made
available in the law library, as it was many years ago. This would inform the inmate of

the rules and regulations the Disciplinary Hearing O?icer must abide by.

Grievances

Grievances in TDCJ are ?led in a two-step process. Step 1 grievances are ?led
with unit grievance of?cials by dropping it in a box in the prison hallway. (All grievance
personnel are employed by TDCJ, and the grievances are sometimes retrieved from the
grievance box by correctional of?cers.) Step 1 grievances are typically answered in 40-70
days. If the inmate is unsatis?ed with the response, he can ?le a Step 2, which goes to a
regional of?ce, and the grievance is reviewed by still more TDCJ grievance officials.

Most inmates in Texas prisons agree that the grievance system is a farce. They
refuse to ?le a grievance on legitimate issues not because they fear retaliation but because
they know the complaint will be returned with a standard response: ?The investigation
reveals your claims are unfounded and without evidence. Therefore, no further action will
be taken.? When the Step 2 is ?led, it is also returned with another standard response:
?The Step 1 adequately responded to your complaint. Therefore, no further action will be
taken.? Any question in the validity of this assessment can be veri?ed by reviewing

random grievances obtained through an open records request.

Responsible Prison Project 37

One writer of this paper became familiar with the process of grievance
investigations While he worked in the law library at two di?erent prison units. The
process is as follows: An inmate would ?le a grievance against law library of?cials by
dropping it in the grievance box. The grievance of?cials would assign it a number, make
a photocopy of it, and send it to the law library with a form for them to ?ll out with a
response. The law library of?cials would respond with something vague, never
addressing the issue directly, and return it to the grievance of?cials. They would then put
either the response ?'om the law library or another general response and send it to the
assistant warden to Sign. The grievance would then be returned to the inmate. The
grievance of?cials never actually investigated anything, and the issues were never
resolved.

Proposal:

The grievance system be removed from TDCJ o?icials altogether and managed
independently by non?prison employees funded by the Legislature, with the number of
employees commensurate with the amount of grievance o?icials currently employed at
each unit. A grievance o??ice accessible to inmates should be set up inside the prison,
similar to mailroom windows that are accessible to the inmates in the main hallway. The
independent grievance employees would be available for eight hours daily, Monday
through Friday. Inmates could come to the window to file a grievance. A tracking number
could be assigned immediately and a carbon copy or photocopy supplied to the inmate;
alternately, a receipt of ?ling could be given to the inmate to cut down on expense. The

grievance employees should independently investigate the claim, without interference

Responsible Prison Project 38

from and based on the actual evidence obtained make a recommendation to the
senior warden of the unit. Failure to accept the recommendation and act on it would
result in the grievance being forwarded to either a regional DCJ director to act on or
forwarded to the O?ice of Inspector General for an investigation into unethical practices
by unit administration. If the inmate is unsatisfied with the unit?level response, he could
appeal to an o?-site grievance manager who would send independent representatives to
investigate the claim. Such a system would result in grievances being addressed with

integrity and would cause TDCJ o?icers to comply with policy.

Privileges and Incentives

Good behavior often goes overlooked in prison. The of?cers know who the
troublemakers are and tend to let them get away with nefarious activities to keep peace
among the inmate population. Prisoners who maintain model conduct are unable to
distinguish themselves in any signi?cant way because unit administration pays them no
mind. As a result, many inmates who have had a desire to change and do good have given
up hope because their efforts go unnoticed. If TDCJ staff notice the bad behavior of
inmates and bring attention to it, they should also acknowledge the good behavior and
bring attention to that.

One of the privileges that requires inmates to maintain a good disciplinary
record are the unit craftshops. Unfortunately, however, most of Texas prisons have shut

down their craftshops for two main reasons: they struggle to meet ACA21 compliance, and

 

21ACA is the American Correctional Association, an organization that audits prisons loosely
and accredits them to lessen their liability in lawsuits. It should be noted, however, that prison
administrators know months in advance when the audits will be and as a result play ?housecleaning?

Responsible Prison Project 39

the prisons do not have suf?cient staff.22 For Texas prisoners, the craftshop is the only
legal way of providing for oneself ?nancially. Steadin closing down the cra?shops,
though, serves to take away incentive for doing the right thing.

Proposal:

Just as prisoners are distinguished for bad behavior; they should also be able
to distinguish themselves for good behavior. Giving inmates the ability to set themselves
apart from those who choose to continue to misbehave would give an inmate a reason to
care about his future; it would give him hope that his future can be different; and giving
inmates hope about a better future will change the culture of the prison system.

Inmates should be able to earn privileges, not just be granted the same
privileges as all other inmates. 23 For example, many states allow inmates to wear various
clothing. Texas makes inmates all wear the same uniform: white shirt with white elastic-
band pants. All clothes purchased in commissary are inmate-made and are white. Some
variation could be allowed, as it is in other prison systems. Inmates who have
distinguished themselves as model inmates could be permitted to order various styles of
shoes from an approved vendor.

Following that thinking, various units could be classified for inmates who have
proven to be model inmates. These units could allow inmates to have more privileges
granted because they had earned them. They could wear jean-type pants and non-white

shirts. Wi?fi access could be granted to inmates at this unit. DCJ should coordinate with

 

immediately before the audits. All inspections and audits should be unannounced.
22 Craftshops require one officer.

23A11 inmates are granted these privileges: commissary, recreation, visitation (contact with
immediate family), and phone calls.

Responsible Prison Project 40

other prison systems to gain ideas of permissible privileges that have proven e??ective at
positive change without threatening the security of the institution.

Another privilege inmates could earn would be to use them as mentors for
juvenile offenders in TY C, especially ?eld ministers who have proven themselves to be
trustworthy. Inmates who are housed in the region where TY units are located could be
bused to the TY facility one day per week to mentor the juveniles. This would allow the
inmates to be able to stop the criminal cycle, to provide some form of restitution, and to
help others while they are incarcerated.

Inmates should be allowed to earn the right to work with community
organizations that focus on crime prevention and restorative justice. DCJ should
actively attempt to open up avenues for inmates to make restitution, even while they are
in prison. This includes giving back to society in some format and also helping other
inmates stop the criminal cycle?to move them away from a life of crime. The criminal
justice system must start viewing inmates as human beings worthy of redemption rather
than constantly reinforcing the ideals of them being second-class citizens that will never
regain their place in society.

Texas prisoners should be able to earn some kind of work credits for their
labor. DCJ does not pay their inmates.? ?Work time? is accredited to an inmate, but for
violent o?enders, that work time does not apply to their sentence and is without value.
This practice should be re-thought and changed. Inmates should either be paid or should

be given work time credits that apply towards all inmates' sentences, even violent

 

2? Currently, Texas, Arkansas, and Georgia are the only states that do not pay their inmates.

Responsible Prison Project 41

o?enders. For that class of inmates, the time would be deducted from their mandatory
minimum. This would give inmates an incentive to work hard and would encourage
rehabilitation.

If an inmate has come to prison, transformed as a person, and has proven to
be rehabilitated, he should not be denied parole. When an inmate is repeatedly denied
parole, even though it is clear he has been rehabilitated, not only does it cause him to
question why he tries so hard, it also deters other inmates from changing and e??ectively
discourages rehabilitation.

Overall, privileges and incentives give inmates a reason to care, and a reason
to care leads an inmate to seek reformation. When privileges and incentives are small
and punishment is large, recidivism rates are grand; the number of victims from

recidivists is exponentially related to the degree of punishment a prison system in?icts.

Re-Entry

The primary goal of a justice system should be reform, not punishment. The
causes of crime should be addressed, or else justice systems sell their respective societies
short. Philosophies, belief systems, and bankrupt cultural ideas should be addressed, but
they are not. Ignorance and bad should be addressed, but they are not.
Because the primary goal of prison should be reform, re-entry should be the goal and
focus of all prison sentences.

Currently, TDCJ seems to be slowly moving towards a perspective of

rehabilitation with a focus on re?entry, but this focus is mainly on those who are soon to

Responsible Prison Project 42
be released from prison. Re-entry ideals should start from Day One; attempting to prepare

an individual for re-entry to society a?er twenty or more years in prison by running them
through a three? or six-month program is futile.

Proposal:

The current re-entry programs should be audited/evaluated to eliminate those
that are failing, like The state should require a robust Homeward Bound
patterned on the version being developed at Darrington to be taught by well-trained peer
educators and Field Ministers.? The legislature should mandate re-entry training for all,
even giving the power to deny parole to those who have refused to cooperate.

The necessity of intra-personal development, especially concerning familial
relationships, means DCJ should foster this for re-entry purposes. This relates to
spiritual and emotional growth and development.? Relationships?building them and
maintaining them?are an important aspect of emotional growth and maturity, and they
should be fostered.

E?ective programs, specifically re-entry programs, will aid successful
reintegration. The best, tested, and proven re-entry programs should be mandatory for all
released inmates; the ine?ective programs (like CHANGES) should be eliminated.

Inmates need to know their behavior will a?ect their chances of re-entry. To

 

25 CHANGES is a program that wastes taxpayer money. Inmates are run through a three-month
program that basically consists of watching outdated videos repeatedly. No skills are actually taught, and
there is little to no interaction with real-world challenges. Every one of the ?ve authors of this paper agree
that in all the prisons they have been assigned to, CHANGES is unsuccessful and should be discontinued.

26 This program teaches the importance of personal responsibility for effective and successful
living, and it provides inmates with job interview skills, resume skills, and hosts job fairs with free-world
businesses who come to speak to the inmates.

27Most inmates do not mature emotionally beyond the initial state in which they entered
prison, and in fact many deteriorate emotionally.

Responsible Prison Project 43

further this end, TDCJ should include in their mission statement the idea that if a
prisoner does the right thing, his future will be better. This may also be achieved with an
e?ective system of rewards and punishments. It is definitely done by giving inmates hope
?hope that their efforts will result in quick release and successful re-entry. Violent
prisons arise from hopeless inmates.

DCJ needs to be able to distinguish between dangerous and non-dangerous
inmates. As it stands, they identi?) as dangerous those with a violent crime in their past,
but criminal behavior does not work this way. Some people with one or two violent
crimes will never re?o??end, and many with no history of violence are on the verge of
acting out. How does DCJ determine who is and is not safe? A prisoner?s disciplinary
record speaks louder than his criminal history, as do his programming and family
support. DCJ needs to identi?z those inmates who are adapting and maturing and assist

them as much as possible to complete their IT Ps and re-enter society in minimum time.

Individualized Treatment Program (ITP)

Since early-2016, inmates at Darrington Unit have had an opportunity to speak
with the chaplain about What has been entered in TDCJ's mainframe for the inmate's
successful completion of certain ITP programs.28 While this is a step in the light
direction, it still is not suf?cient to inform an inmate of what he needs to do. There are no

?individualized treatment programs? per se. Currently, What is good for Bill is also good

 

23 It is unknown whether inmates at other prisons have the same opportunity. In 2013, the Texas
Legislature mandated that TDCJ implement a way to inform inmates of what is required for their ITP upon
their arrival at a prison unit. Inmates are supposed to be enrolled in programs to encourage successful re-
entry. This has only partially been ful?lled: inmates may know what has been entered on the computer, but
they still do not know exactly what they need to do?there is no ITP for speci?c inmates.

Responsible Prison Project 44

for Bob and Brenda. This only changes when an inmate is actually granted parole; then
speci?c programs may be required.

Proposal:

This is a critical area for improvement. The current I is under-emphasized
and ine??ective. The IT should be redesigned to be a robust tool that guides all o?enders
toward a presumptive parole. In other words, IT Ps should be relevant to each o??ender
and should be necessary and su?icient to merit parole. The IT should require minimal
education (GED), vocational training, crime-speci?c programming, and victim impact
training. Inmates should know early in their prison sentences what is expected of them

for parole approval.

Vocational and Educational Programs

TDCJ has its own school district, known as Windham School District (WSD),
with schools at each prison unit. Inmates may request to be put in school, but they are
routinely assigned without request. While many inmates willingly go to school, some do
so only so they do not have to work elsewhere and so they can be in an air-conditioned
environment when it is hot. Many do not want to be there, but they are not allowed to
refuse schooling. This results in the inmates who want to get an education being denied
because there are no openings due to people who do not want to be there ?lling slots.
Also, some inmates are denied an education because of the length of their sentence.

Teachers at WSD have a dif?cult time teaching the students because there is

such a diverse spectrum of educational needs in one room. A student who may have a

ResPonsible Prison Project 45

fourth- grade literacy level may be in the a room with others who are struggling only to
pass math just to get their GED. Some teachers have poor results, however, because they
just do not make an effort.

Teachers with inmate tutors have better results than teachers without them. The
Legislature has already recognized the suf?ciency of inmate tutors in Texas Government
Code sections 498.003(d) and 501.005. Objective surveys will prove this to be true: when
inmate tutors are prohibited from helping students, test results drop.

Proposal:

Inmates who do not want to be in school should be removed from school and a
notation should be made in their parole ?les that they refused programming.
Furthermore, inmates who are in school should show steady progress in aptitude testing.
If there are two consecutive tests where substantial progress is not made, the inmate
should be removed from school unless the teacher can vouch that the inmate is genuinely
trying to progress.

Inmates who want to gain an education should not be denied simply because of
the length of their sentence. An educated inmate is more prone to behave better than non-
educated inmates and will therefore have an impact on other inmates, making the prison
a sa?ar place and more conducive to rehabilitation.

Tutors and teachers' aides should be required in WSD. Since this is already
provided for by statute, this should not be an issue. Inmates want to help others, but they
have to be provided the opportunity to do so. DCJ of?cials should consider as well the

double bene?t to inmate tutors and teachers' aides: improved grades and exam scores,

Responsible Prison Project 46

and a sense of purpose for the tutor When somebody discovers their life is not
meaningless, it greatly impacts how they view life and the direction their life will go. In
short, a tutor program facilitates rehabilitation and the reduction of the recidivism rate.

Teachers should be evaluated and should be required to meet speci?c
standards to continue teaching. The standards applied in mainstream free-world
schooling should also be applied in WSD.

Classes that are deemed ine?ective after evaluations and audits should be
discontinued. Classes that can be taught by inmates?similar to peer education classes?
should be. These may include cognitive intervention and similar classes. The Texas
Legislature should also consider allowing inmates with bachelor degrees from accredited
schools to take the place of salaried teachers to save the state money and better reach the
inmate populace. This would further support the principle of rehabilitation and re-entry.

More vocational and educational opportunities should be made available that
are in line with current career ?eld availability. For example, the personal health ?eld is
currently exploding with opportunities. Therefore, DCJ should implement educational
opportunities that will train inmates as personal trainers, nutritionists, etc. They also

train inmates as professional barbers, which is a trade that will never trend out.

Administrative Segregation Programs
The number of prisoners in administrative segregation boomed in
Texas in the mid-1980s when violent gang activity exploded in an attempt to ?ll the

power vacuum created by doing away with the building tender system.29 Until recent

 

29 Texas prisons used to be run by inmates known as building tenders. They were responsible

Responsible Prison Project 47

years, TDCJ has provided no method of transitioning these inmates either from seg to
general population or from seg to society.

Several programs are now available for seg offenders. The Administrative
Segregation Pre-Release Program is for Level I and Level 11 seg inmates Who have three
months until release to parole or discharge from their sentence. This covers 120 hours of
in?cell pro gramming in anger management, thinking errors, cultural diversity, and
substance abuse.

The Gang Renouncement and Disassociation Process (GRAD) is for con?mied
gang members who disassociate from their gang membership and transition from seg to
general population. The process lasts approximately nine months and consists of three
phases before moving the GRAD graduate to a unit whose population is tolerant of
former gang members.

The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative is a seven?month pre-
release program that includes cognitive restructuring, life skills training, substance abuse
education, anger management, literacy, cultural diversity, faith-based courses?all of
which target lowering the recidivism rate.

The Administrative Segregation Transition Program is a four-month program
that transitions seg inmates back into general population and covers dysfunctional

thinking patterns, life and coping skills, problem solving, and building and maintaining

 

for keeping order in the prison but were done away with under a decades-long lawsuit ?led by David Ruiz
and other inmates in the late-1970s. When building tenders were done away with, gangs vied for control.
This resulted in thousands of inmates over the last three decades being placed in years-long isolation
known as administrative segregation. Most of the inmates in ad-seg are con?ned there due only to being
con?rmed as a gang member, even though they have not physically harmed anyone during their gang
activity.

Responsible Prison Project 48

appropriate and healthy relationships.

While all of these things are commendable and noteworthy, TDCJ should
continue to provide more activities for seg inmates.

Proposal:

The overall objective for all incarcerated persons, including seg inmates,
should be rehabilitation. As a result, positive activities that encourage positive behavior
should be permitted for seg inmates. For example, talent shows could be performed in
seg living areas that would include live music and comedy productions from the general
population. Christmas caroling could be performed for them by the unit choir as is it for
general population at some of the units.

Gang-related inmates who have not committed any gang-related violence
should be transitioned back into general population, even if they refuse to renounce their
gang membership. DCJ o?icials would object to this proposal vehemently, but there is
already precedence for it. Due to the overwhelming number of Crips and Bloods in the
prison system, for example, these gang members are allowed to stay in general
population until they commit serious bodily injury against another person during gang
activities. TDCJ permits this because they do not have the segregation space to house all
of these people. Therefore, people should not be isolated for years?sometimes decades?
only because they have been confirmed as a gang member.

Field ministers?graduates from the four-year seminary program o?ered
through Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at Darrington Unit?are being

utilized to change the culture of the prison system. Field ministers are currently permitted

Responsible Prison Project 49

to go unescorted to minister to seg inmates. These ministers should also be allowed to
provide educational training to seg inmates, one-on-one tutoring, and other positive
faith-based initiatives. Dignitaries such as Senator John Whitmire and Lieutenant

Governor Dan Patrick is supportive of such measures.

Unit Issues
This section contains topics that either pertain to individual units or that may

not affect the inmate population as a whole.

Unit Arrival

The ?rst few days of an inmate's arrival at a new unit can be harrowing.
Depending on the unit, some inmates are assaulted to prove their toughness. A new
arrival's ?rst few weeks can be met with various dif?culties. This is especially so if the
person has never been to prison before and does not understand the culture. As a result, it
is at this time that inmates are most inclined to get in trouble and fall into nefarious
activities such as gang involvement, the prison black market, extortion, and other wrongs.

Proposal:

The goal for new arrivals is to point them to the job and education they need
to serve their time on the unit safely and productively. Inmates need to be connected to
the resources that can help them make a healthy adjustment. New arrivals should be
assigned a mentor that can follow up on their adjustment and help them enroll in
rehabilitative and religious programs. New arrivals should also have their IT explained

to them so they can know what path to take to most e?ectively pursue rehabilitation.

Responsible Prison Project 50

Several Texas prisons?those with field ministers who have graduated from
Darrington?s seminary program?have an intake program that introduces new arrivals to
the unit. This program is loosely known as Gatekeepers. The Gatekeepers will explain to
the inmate what the unit is like and what educational and religious programming is
available. He will also encourage to the new person to turn his hardship into an
opportunity for improvement. The Gatekeepers do all they can to reduce new-arrival
anxiety and to lead the newcomer down the right path??the path of rehabilitation that
will help them be transformed morally and rejoined with their family and loved ones in
society. All inmates just coming to a unit should encounter Gatekeepers before they go to
their housing locations, which means that DCJ should find a way to implement this

program throughout the system.

Black Market

The prison black market exists on two levels: items stolen within TDCJ (state
property such as bleach, markers, food, etc.) and items smuggled into TDCJ. The prison
black market thrives because of demand, but it also thrives because of the urge to have
what is scarce, to get high, or to make money. These desires are not going to go away, but
TDCJ can create a culture where the costs of choosing these things outweigh the bene?ts.

Proposal:

With respect to non-dangerous contraband, do not allow black markets by
default. This means TDCJ should make accessible through commissary all the things that

inmates normally steal from the state, such as pillows (via the destruction of mattresses),

Responsible Prison Project 51

bleach (whitening agent for commissary clothing), spices, sandwich bags, containers
(Tupperware) for drink and food storage, onions, laundry detergent, small o?ice supplies
(hi-liters, colored pens, clips, paperclips, rubberbands, etc. Policy states inmates are
not allowed to have these things, but everybody has these things anyway and they are
stolen from the state, at taxpayer expense. DCJ 's prohibition against them in no way
stops people ?om having them; the prohibition simply costs the state money.
Furthermore, the state encourages theft and immorality by banning such comforts that
border on necessity, because people live here year in and year out?some people for
decades?and will need them so often they will eventually acquire them, especially since
so many have them already.

Some, but not all, contraband would be eliminated by creating a wage-earning
program. Inmates would not be as likely to steal from their jobs those jobs paid $40
per month. Those caught stealing would temporarily lose their job and privileges. But
much contraband is smuggled in by inmates that already have family support. The prison
black market is a very old problem, and if history has taught anything, it is that
increasing the punishment for such violations does not significantly reduce the
contraband. Rather than increasing prison time for those who violate the rules,
increase the rewards for following the rules. Cellphones could be allowed on a limited
basis, as well as tablet computers with music, ebooks, and movies.

Items smuggled into DCJ could be signi?cantly reduced if o?icers would do
their jobs with integrity. Very few of the items smuggled into the prisons come through

visitation. Most of them come from sta? members, primarily o??icers, bringing them in,

Responsible Prison Project 52

and a large majority comes ?om trusty inmates who are housed at trusty camps bringing
it in the back gate in hidden compartments on tractors and trucks. O?icers should be
rewarded somehow for making discoveries of such items and such hidden compartments.

This would significantly decrease the flow of dangerous black market items.

Group Punishment

Some units have a policy of punishing an entire group of people for the actions
of one or a few. For example, an inmate may get ?locked up? (placed in solitary
con?nement or pre-hearing detention) for being drunk, or two inmates may be locked up
for ?ghting. The group punishment comes into effect when everybody in that living area
(60-200 people) gets locked down (con?ned to their cell or cubicle) and fed a sack meal,
consisting of two sandwiches each meal, for twenty-four hours. This keeps the group
from participating in programming and from enjoying privileges they have not forfeited
for bad behavior, while the inmates who are locked up are enjoying hot meals. The
reasoning for this administrative decision is arbitrary and has never been explained to the
group, so they have no idea what the purpose of the punishment is.

Although TDCJ discourages inmates from wielding authority over one another,
the concept of group punishment stems from the notion that we can and should in?uence
one another to do the right thing. Is this realistic? Few prisoners will put themselves at
risk to do the right thing. Many do not paiticipate in the activities under scrutiny, but they
will suffer with others because they hold their personal safety to be more valuable. Does

TDCJ really want inmates to band together to deal with rogues who want to break the

Responsible Prison Project 53

rules? Instead of punishing those who make the mistake of living around a deviant, TDCJ
should reward those who are not offending and in this way put the pressure on the
deviant to change.

In prison, an inmate's primary focus should be reformation. All inmates must
overcome the character defects that allowed them to be the kind of people who
committed their crimes in the ?rst place, and some people are able to do this more
quickly than others. Reformation gives rise to the necessity of distinguishment. If there is
no distinguishment available, there is no justice. Everybody does not deserve to be
treated exactly the same way. To do so is to contribute to injustice, to reward vice and
penalize virtue. good behavior still results in bad consequences, for the good are treated
on par with the bad. Group punishment, treating an entire population of people as if they
are all equal to the bad actors and their actions, is a breach of justice that the justice
system can ill afford and should not tolerate.

Proposal:

Inmates should not be punished as a group for the behavior of a few. This is
not to say there should be no institutional disciplinary lockdowns. Sometimes these are
needed, especially when two gangs are at war and riots or multiple stabbings erupt; at
that point, lockdowns may be needed to regain control of the unit.

If an inmate gets drunk or gets into a fight, the troublesome inmate alone
should be punished. Group punishment sends the message that in society an entire city
block should su?er for the actions of one citizen. Prison policies should prepare the

inmate for re?entry into society, and group punishment is antithetical to rehabilitation.

Responsible Prison Project 54

Living Conditions

While Texas prisons are not in such dilapidated conditions as third-world
prisons, the living conditions in Texas prisons are poor. The authors of this paper do not
expect to be pampered and realize prison inherently will be uncomfortable. But prison
should not inherently be unsanitary.

Texas prisons undergo dog-and?pony show inspections. The inspectors are
administrators from other Texas prisons who come look at the cosmetic clean?up of the
prison being inspected?and these inspections have been scheduled for months in
advance. No inspection is unannounced.

TDCJ is not held to the same standards as other state agencies when it comes
to cleanliness or sanitation. The prevailing attitude is that ?it's just prison.? And that
attitude spills over into inmates' perceptions of the prison communities in which they
live. For example, conditions in Darrington Unit?s chow hall are such that it would be
immediately shut down were it a free-world business. Filthy trays, spoons, and cups are
given to inmates. Roaches cover the ?oor. The drinking rim of cups are placed down on
dirty tables. Washing chemicals are pilfered and not used. And the food is contaminated
with bugs. The o??icers' dining room, however, is quite different: waxed ?oors, clean
utensils, clean everything. While some prisons are indeed cleaner than others, none of
them would pass a state inspection administered to other non-prison agencies.

Living areas are little better because most inmates have no cleaning supplies.
Inmate janitors are not given enough chemicals to mop and clean sinks and toilets twice

per shift, and their areas are not inspected to ensure they are being cleaned. Furthermore,

Responsible Prison Project 55

of?cers have a tendency either not to let the inmate janitors clean the living areas like it
needs it, or the anitors do not want to clean because they ?ain?t working for free.? Staff
restroom and eating areas stay clean, though, and there are always plenty of chemical for
cleaning staff areas.

Some units?Cof?eld, for example?are loaded with black mold. Free-world
businesses and agencies would be shutdown for such conditions, but they are allowed to
persist in prisons mainly because prisoners are viewed as throw-away citizens. Inmates
are viewed today as the non-humans slaves were viewed as 150 years ago.

Proposal:

Texas prisons should be subject to unannounced inspections ?om outside the
agency, just as other state agencies are. Nursing homes, restaurants, and other state
agencies are subject to unannounced health inspections; DCJ should be no exception.
Prisons should not be viewed as less important for humane sanitary standards simply
because convicted felons reside there.

Cosmetic clean-ups should be ignored by inspectors. Inspectors should go to
the living areas and view the peeling paint, mold, other conditions that pervade areas
that are typically not inspected.

DCJ should be subject to outside, independent oversight by non-prison sta?
and disinterested third parties. State legislators over criminal justice committees and
executive director should also make unannounced visits to the prisons and view

the prison system for which they are responsible.

Responsible Prison Project 56
Work And Labor Issues

Texas, Arkansas, and Georgia are the only three states that do not pay their
inmates for working. Granted, prisoners are not entitled to payment for their labor and are
actually considered under involuntary servitude according to the Thirteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Failure to pay inmates, however, negatively impacts
society and stunts rehabilitation among inmates because it discourages productivity in the
inmate population.

Productivity is a gateway virtue to other temporal virtues (justice, kindness,
service, etc.). State legislators have implicitly recognized this fact and codi?ed it in Texas
Government Code section which requires inmate participation in a work

program:

The board may develop by rule and the department may administer an incentive pay
scale program for the inmates required to work in agricultural, industrial, or other
work programs. In developing the program, the board shall set pay levels not to
unjustly reward inmates, but rather to instruct inmates on the virtues of diligent
participation in the workplace. 30

Free labor fails to instruct inmates on the virtues of diligent participation in the
workplace, and it actually discourages inmates from working diligently. Many inmates
who have what are considered to be menial jobs (ianitors, kitchen workers, laundry) can
routinely be heard saying they ?ain't gonna work for free.? So they try to ?nd ways to
dodge their work duties, which invariably means somebody else will have to pick them
up. Giving inmates some kind of remuneration for their work would promote positive

behavior among the inmate population and would help inmates success?illy reintegrate

 

3? Emphasis added.

Responsible Prison Project 57

back into society.

Most of society believes inmates are getting paid already. It comes as a shock
when Texas inmates ask free-world people for money for supplies such as deodorant and
shampoo because TDCJ does not supply them and does not pay inmates so they can
purchase their own.

The only way Texas inmates legitimately make money on their own is through
the craftshops, but because of administrative ideals that craftshops are unnecessary, many
of them have been closed down. Beyond that, the average craftshop has only enough
work stations for of a prison's eligible population. Inmates who do get in the
craftshop, though, are less inclined to get in trouble because they stand to lose all the
money they have invested in their supplies and equipment and furthermore can no longer
participate in the craftshop.

For only one half of one percent of TDCJ's budget, all minimum custody
inmates (this excludes punitive custody of any kind) could be paid $40 per month. If pay
scales were gradated according to the jobs, similar to free-world careers, then some
inmates would make more than others and the overall expense would be less than of
the budget. TDCJ would inevitably recoup this money through commissary purchases,
but TDCJ would also save money otherwise because it would leave the facilities in better
condition, cut down on inmate theft, and increase inmate morale. Paying inmates would
also justify charging them a co-pay for medical care and would help counties collect their
court fees that are outstanding against inmates.

Giving inmates some kind of wage would help build a strong work ethic and

Responsible Prison Project 58

lower recidivism in the long run. This would make the public safer and decrease the
number of new victims. Therefore, inmates should not be treated as slaves but should be
prepared for real-world experiences.31

Proposal:

In accordance with Texas Government Code section 497. 099(b), TDCJ should
implement paying inmates for participating in "agricultural, industrial, and other work
programs. should get away from inmate slavery, following the trend of 4 7 other
states and the federal prison system.

DCJ administration and the Texas Board of Criminal Justice should mandate
the re-opening of craftshops at all prison units where craftshop facilities are available.
The closing of craftshops should not be left to a warden's discretion, as it is currently.

Work release programs should be implemented. Inmates who are within two
years of parole eligibility or mandatory release would become eligible if they meet
certain criteria that is based on successful completion of all rehabilitative programming,
minimal disciplinary record, and recommendation by the Unit Classi?cation Committee
with approval by the State Classification Committee.

A strong work ethic and responsible behaviors should be encouraged by

and forcing inmates to work for free is antithetical to everything the American

 

3? At the very least, inmates should be provided diligent work credits that apply toward parole
eligibility. In Texas, 62% of inmates are violent offenders. This means they are excluded from receiving
credit for working that is applied towards their parole eligibility date because work time is considered on
par with good time. The Legislature needs to rectify this by changing the statutes to differentiate between
good time and work time. The work credits would then be applied towards the violent o?'enders' mandatory
minimum before parole eligibility, but would leave them still serving many more years beyond what non-
violent inmates serve. This would create an incentive for all inmates and would encourage positive
behavior among the inmate population and would help to increase rehabilitative activities.

Responsible Prison Project 59

ideal stands for. We are not in 1865, the time of the Thirteenth Amendment's creation.

Classi?cation
TDCJ classi?cation committees consist of the State Classi?cation Committee,
which sits in Huntsville, and each individual prison's Unit Classi?cation Committee. The
committees are mostly shrouded from inmate knowledge, so the recommendations here
are limited. While there is a Classi?cation Manual available in the unit law libraries,
changes over the years have moved much of the policy directing the SCC and UCC to

unit-level manuals that inmates are not allowed to View.

State Classi?cation Committee (SCC)

Proposal:

The SCC should develop an online inmate database to publicly post what
o?enders are doing in prison: disciplinary infractions, IT completion, job assignment,
education, eta?both the good and the bad.

The SCC should also make it a priority to keep inmates near their families
when they assign them to a prison unit. Since free-world support is one of the most
ejj?ective factors in reducing recidivism, the SCC should endeavor as much as possible to
locate an inmate closest to his supporters.

The SCC should make it easy to transfer for educational/vocational classes, as

long as inmates show a history of program completion.

Responsible Prison Project 60
Unit Classi?cation Committee (U CC)

UCC should be a place where inmates are guided according to their recent
actions (commended, promoted, and rewarded for good behavior; rebuked, demoted,
punished for bad behavior) and where they are directed into the proper programs
according to their I PS.

Housing is one of the main ways in which UCC can control an inmate?s
rehabilitative outcome. Great attention should be paid to the complaints against and
behaviors of problem prisoners so they can be housed accordingly. New and vulnerable

inmates should be housed with safer inmates.

Parole

The parole board reviews an inmate for release to supervision at the ?rst
eligibility as determined by the laws in effect at the time of sentencing. The jury is in
charge of determining the sentence, not the parole board or the victim. Therefore, the
decision to grant parole cannot be determined by the parole board's changing sense of
severity of offense, by the trends in sentencing of the day, or by the in?uence of victims?
rights activists. The state does an injustice when it allows these elements to enter the
parole decision, and when these elements in?uence the parole board, it undermines the
goal of rehabilitation by producing hopeless inmates who have no control over their
release.

The crucial part of parole is that inmates have the expectation that successful

rehabilitation leads to parole. The presumption should not be that parole is granted unless

ResPonsible Prison Project 61

the inmate forfeits it for bad behavior. The presumption should be that inmates who work
hard to change by completing at the very least their ITP will be granted ?rst parole. In
other words, rather than grant release simply for serving time without causing trouble,
release should be granted only to those who have successfully been rehabilitated. This
requires a robust ITP program to insure inmates get the very best treatment available.

There are no objective criteria for granting parole. With one's life in the
balance, one can but hope to get lucky. From prison there is no route through which one
may de?nitively earn freedom. The parole board personnela-whose emotions on any
given day rule the roost?know little to nothing about the people they judge. The parole
decision-makers seldom interview would?be parolees. To make matters more unjust, it is
common practice for society to in?uence parole board decisions, openly and directly. It is
permissible for those in society to in?uence the parole board's decision on any felon
based on feelings, but a felon cannot in?uence his own parole decision based on current
facts and standards.

Parole has no oversight and is not accountable to anyone. Problems within the
board are handled internally, such as the accusations of bribery and selling of parole
votes by Pamela Freeman and Paul Kiel, both commissioners for the board. Instead of
facing criminal charges or dismissal, they were ?relocated? to new areas of the state and
continue to work for the state.

The parole board will admit they do not use or have any set formula or
speci?cation in weighing a parole candidate. In fact, no interview is conducted by the

board unless a split vote requires further investigation. The interviews that do take place

Responsible Prison Project 62

are rushed, each ?le given less than a minute's consideration?twenty?one people make
over seventy thousand decisions each year, while also maintaining their day-to?day
administrative duties!

The parole board is exempt from having to disclose any information obtained
by them and placed in an inmate's ?le. In fact, the parole ?les on any current Texas
inmates, as well as those inmates who have completed their sentences, are closed to all,
including the inmate, their family members, and to any lawyers retained by the inmates to
investigate the ?le. The ?les are excluded even by a Freedom of Information Act or Open
Records request. This means any attempt by legal counsel to refute, reject, or correct bad
?le information is blocked, and the board can place and use any erroneous or false
infomiation against parole candidates.

Proposal:

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles needs to be made transparent. Their
decision-making process should be made available to the public. Inmate ?les should be
made available to the inmate or his attorney so any incorrect information that may be
in?uencing the parole voters can be corrected. The Legislature needs to form a parole
oversight committee.

Standards and criteria for parole should be very speci?c, and every inmate
should know those requirements. When interviews are needed, diligent assessments
should be made, which of necessity will take far more time than the current twenty-one
voters can handle.

Inmates should have an Individualized Treatment Plan (IT P) explained to them

Responsible Prison Project 63
within 90 days of being received by TDCJ. This plan should include all rehabilitative

programming that will be required for the inmate to make parole. If the inmate refuses
this programming, he should not be released to parole until those requirements are met.
Conversely, if the inmate meets the requirements, unless there are exceptional
circumstances, the inmate should be released to parole at his eligibility date.

The Board should be significantly expanded. It is unconscionable to think that
twenty-one people can e?ectively make over seventy thousand decisions a year. This
leads a reasonable person to conclude that the decisions are being arbitrarily decided,
and those who are granted parole do so not because they have been rehabilitated but

because they have been the lucky candidates that day.

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous Proposals:

Just as bad behavior can result in bad consequences, good behavior should
result in good consequences and not be ignored. By stages, inmates should have
the opportunity to attain higher and higher levels of distinguishment with other
like-minded inmates; by stages, inmates should be slowly reintroduced to society
and treated more and more normally. Concerted, systemic e?ort to ?reach back?
by those who have distinguished themselves to those who have not, to help the
have-nots to do the same.

- DCJ has historically done little to achieve their stated mission of assisting

victims of crime. They can improve, ?rst of all, by taking the other missions more

Responsible Prison Project 64

seriously so as to produce fewer victims. Beyond that, DCJ victim services should
prepare victims for the eventual release of the inmate. They should encourage
victims to make contact with o??enders with the purpose of explaining victim impact
and preparing for reconciliation. The trend today is to create a barrier between the
two that allows fear and hatred to continue. While the state cannot force victims to
meet or to forgive the o?enders, the state should explain that other victims have
done so and have experienced peace and freedom through the process?as well as
helping the o?ender learn from his mistakes. Every crime should have a
rehabilitative pathway, and that needs to include restoration with the person
harmed.

- DCJ should stop taking reactionary measures and creating impulsive
policies based on the behavior of one or a few inmates. Systemic prohibition on all
G-332 inmates not being able to work certain jobs because of the violent, in?prison
activity of a few is one example of this. TDCJ must realize they will never achieve
zero-risk prisons and should punish only the prisoners who are problematic.

TDCJ needs to be placed under independent oversight. DCJ needs to be
transparent, and the public needs to be able to know what is truly going on in its
prisons. The current policy for religious volunteers who come into prison, for
example, is that they cannot talk to media about what they see occur in prison or
their assessment about how well or poor the system operates; all questions must be

directed to the DCJ spokesperson. Transparency and independent oversight is

 

3?2 These are minimum?custody inmates with sentences of ?fty years or more but who have not
served at least ten years of that sentence.

Responsible Prison Project 65

necessity.

Society assumes that the full fault of crime lies with criminals alone, and no
one ever questions whether the criminal justice system itself is responsible?wholly
or partially?for the problem for failure to rehabilitate those in their custody. The
Legislature and the the Board of Criminal Justice need to coordinate with each
other and determine what kind of people our prisons need to be producing and
then implement laws and policies that achieve that objective?without fear of

public outcry.

Conclusion

An inmate's time in prison should be rehabilitative in its entirety. TDCJ should
implement policies and the Legislature should pass laws that embrace this ideal.
Rehabilitation should begin Day One of an inmate's prison experience; by the time he is
released back to society, if he is not rehabilitated, it should not be the fault of TDCJ for
not performing its duties. This assertion requires a culture change in the administration of
TDCJ. All staff must be re-directed towards encouraging rehabilitation rather than
embracing punishment.

Society cannot afford the cost on humanity of releasing non-rehabilitated
criminals from piison. If, as Dostoevsky has said, ?the degree of civilization in a society

can be judged by entering its prisons,? Texas must change the way it operates its prisons.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges

September 7, 2016

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges
This work looks into some of the challenges faced by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Prison System and suggests a business and/or economics
approach to their solution. The challenges identi?ed represent a concern in terms of the
four?fold mission of the institution, namely, 1) Provide public safety, 2) Promote positive
change in offender behavior, 3) Reintegrate offenders into society, and 4) Assist victims
of crime. The conservative values of our state are herein presupposed. These include,

among others, the value of frugality and the business-oriented nature of our state.

Challenges

Of?cers face a plethora of tasks, paperwork, and regulations which are oftentimes
disarticulated from the mission of TDCJ. Of?cers falsify of?cial documentation such as
time worksheets, logs, disciplinary cases, etc. On any given day, prisoners smoke drugs in
the day room, right in front of security cameras with of?cers standing mere feet away;
these and many other real offenses go unattended; while at the same time of?cers write
bogus disciplinary cases to the few hard-working prisoners for alleged petty offenses.
There is no real, effective recourse for prisoners to o?cer abuse; hard evidence such as
security camera footage is hardly ever taken into account. These scenarios are the norm in
many of the facilities operated by TDCJ.1

It is paramount to be aware that every single act or omission has a cost to society.2

Below is a list of challenges currently present in the prison system. The items below do

 

1 The observations narrated in this paper are the result of ?rst?hand experience of the writer in
the Darrington and Eastham units. Evidence available.

2 N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning,
2015), 5.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 2

not constitute the totality of the challenges faced by the prison system, nor are they in
utmost detail. However, they represent real issues that may be documented for further
research, and that are backed by real occurrences veri?able through documentation and
testimonies.

l. The prison system is a ?nancial burden to society. In its existing, dysfunctional
condition, it generates ever-increasing costs to society. Some of these are readily
quanti?able in dollar terms. What is more, there are long term costs associated
with the consequences of the unsound rehabilitation or outright crime breeding
that occurs in prison.

2. Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) makes products of questionable quality at
non?competitive prices since there are no incentives for neither prisoners nor
managers to make competitive products. Its contractual relationship with TDCJ
for supplies of different kinds actually represents another under?utilization of state
resources and contributes to the ?nancial burden of the State.

3. The current state of the prison system constitutes an offense to the dignity of the
state itself and is creating an inheritance of ?nancial burden and social
decomposition for present and future generations.

4. TDCJ faces increasing budget limitations.

5. Current status of prison and prison culture re?ects the degeneration of the prison
system:

5.1. Little or no rehabilitation achieved (recidivism).

5.2. Substance abuse epidemic.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges

5.3. Low of?cer work morale.
5.4. Promotion of values contrary to state culture (indolence, inef?ciency,
disregard for rule of law, excessive bureaucracy).

6. Current status re?ects gross mismanagement and under-utilization of state
resources, both human (o?icers/prisoners) and material.

7. Promotion of public safety goal is not being met; quite contrarily, the current
system promotes criminal behavior. Prison has become a breeding ground for
more crime and criminals.

8. Prison operation re?ects a short term vision approach in detriment and cost to
society.

9. Officer corruption:

9.1. Officers falsifying documentation.

9.2. Corruption re?ected in the inability to produce rehabilitation and curb
criminal behavior within prison.

9.3. Officer disinterest in work.

9.4. Prison has become a place where of?cers vent their personal
frustrations on easy targets (prisoners), to the cost and detriment of society,
since it creates discontent. ?Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil
with good? (Rom 12:21).

9.5. Officers' misconduct promotes a vicious circle as it creates an ?us vs.
them? attitude among prisoner population in response to of?cers' abuse and

misuse of authority.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 4

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

9.6. Prison system seems to have become a magnet for incompetence and
ine?ciency in the workplace.

9.7. Bogus cases and focus on petty offenses cost society in dollar terms.
Excessive focus on making every single aspect of prison life an opportunity for
punishment. This develops rebellion among prison population, which has negative
short to long term costs and social consequences.

Misuse of material resources has consequential ?nancial burdens. For example,
unsanitary conditions due to misuse of supplies (pest infestation, no soap provided
for population, no chemicals used in living areas) have adverse health effects
which result in medical costs.

Waste everywhere: food stolen or thrown away, medication and medical treatment
sought for obtaining restrictions (avoid certain jobs) since there are no incentives
to perform a productive job for the bene?t of society.

Currently, there are no incentives for rehabilitation or good behavior, nor for
efficiency in the workplace of either of?cers or prisoners.

Facilities are dilapidated as there is no incentive to care but rather to destroy in
revenge against a system that seeks to punish rather than rehabilitate.

The concept of security is often used as a general excuse for of?cer negligence
and inef?ciency in operations, when in fact real security concerns are largely
overlooked (substance abuse, violence, impact of of?cer corruption on prisoners).

Administration of justice in disciplinary hearings in prison is a travesty and

mockery of the principle of due process. Disciplinary hearing of?cers almost

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 5

always ?nd prisoners guilty without any real evidence. This feeds the criminal
mindset of no chance for real justice and therefore no incentive for rehabilitation.

17. Prisoner recourse against officer misconduct through the grievance process is also
a mockery of the notion of justice. Of?cers often verbally mock the prospect of

being the object of grievances.

Solutions

Addressing seemingly insurmountable challenges is something our State is adept
in. Our state's worldwide preeminence in the cotton industry, against all odds, attest to
this.3 Texas? global competitive edge in the oil, medical, commercial, and research ?elds
further demonstrate our State's entrepreneurial ability. TDCJ manages a signi?cant
amount of our states human (about 147,000 prisoners and 30,000 staff) and material
resources.

Our state's cotton industry points to synergetic action among cotton growers,
academia, and government as the recipe for its success. In the case of the of the
challenges faced by our State's prison system, a similar approach may be undertaken in
order to minimize cost and maximize positive results. Such an approach would
complement and boost the individual's long term transformation sought by spiritually?
based initiatives currently in place, such as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at
Darrington Unit, as well as other chapel programs.

?Be transformed by the renewing of your mind? (Rom 12:1), while at the same

 

3 Pietra Rivioli, The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the
Markets, Power; and Politics of World Trade (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Sons, Inc., 2005), 3-57

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 6

time ??ll the earth and subdue it  have dominion over the ?sh of the sea and over the

birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the cart (Gen It is

in our State's best interest to manage responsibly our resources, including those within its

prison system.

Below is a list of items which are suggested as part of a business-oriented

approach solution to TDCJ's challenges:

1.

Applying a business/economics approach to the challenges can boost the ?renewal
of the mind? and achieve overall cultural change of prison system for the bene?t
of society.
Quantify the cost of all acts involved in the operation of prisons (disciplinary
cases, grievances, etc.).
Perform cost-bene?t analyses what is the cost of writing bogus/petty
offenses).
Promote, among of?cers and prisoners, awareness of not only the immediate costs
quanti?able in dollar amount but the long term cost to society of officer
corruption/negligence.
Awareness and training of officers and prisoners on the economics principles of:
5.1. Trade off: Decision making to attain goals.
5.2. Opportunity Cost: Every decision and action has a cost which sometimes
is not readily quanti?able.
5.3. Rational People think at the Margin: Small increments to plan of action;

cost and bene?ts of such small increments.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 7

5.3. Incentives: People respond to incentives.

5.4. Productivity: A community's standard of living depends on its ability to
produce goods and services.

5.5. Trade: Trade makes society better off.

5.6. Markets: Are usually a good way to organize economic activity; our
nation operates on a market economy basis.4

6. Business awareness training of officers prisoners to emphasize:

6.1. ALL actions/inaction have a cost.
6.2. Stress the economic impact upon every member of society, including
the of?cers themselves and their families, and prisoners? families.

7. Maintain the mission statement of the institution, but renew/revise the vision to
include the economic impact (cost/bene?t) of ALL aspects of prison operations on
every member of society, including the of?cers themselves and their families

8. Revise the modus of accomplishing the mission goals such as ?promoting public
safety? to include a business model approach.

9. De?ne incarceration and the loss of liberty as the punishment itself for crime and
prison as the place for rehabilitation of criminals, as contrasted to the current
model wherein incarceration AND all aspects and details of life in prison are an
opportunity for punishment available at of?cers' discretion.

10. View prisoners' daily life in prison as human resources to be managed for the

bene?t of society at large. Consequently, analyze operations in terms of ef?ciency

 

4 Mankiw, Macroeconomics, 4-9.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges

and productivity in addition to security.

11. Implement incentives scheme. These do NOT have to be monetary. For example:
11.1. Credit good conduct time towards sentence.
11.2. Credit work and study time towards sentence.
11.3. Issue privilege passes to the dining hall.
11.4. Issue preferential passes to commissary.
11.5. Issue preferential living area privileges.
11.6. Use existing available areas such as chapels, gyms, and halls, as
incubator workshop space for creative, productive initiatives such as art,
crafts, literary production, entrepreneurship, etc.
11.7. Issue passes to movie/entertainment events.
11.8. Promote participation in sports/ spiritual pro grams through incentives.
11.9. Promote on-the-job productivity through similar, non-monetary
incentives.
11.10. Promote creativity and entrepreneurship by allowing prisoners to
produce crafts within existing facilities, including TCI facilities (6. g. textile
crafts in units where textiles are manufactured).
11.11. Promote and/ or expand existing craft shops.
11.12. Implement income-producing events such as athletic and cultural
events which visitors may attend for a fee.

12. Alleviate of?cers' burden and cost to society through the revision of disciplinary

code of offenses. As it is, it promotes the discretionary charge of petty offenses

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

9

which oftentimes address no real concerns no clothes lines at certain hours).
The current system is abused by of?cers who use it to appear to be doing security
job while serious concerns are overlooked blatant substance abuse in public
areas).

Entrust prisoners with the care of necessities issued for their individual use g. 
issue sets of uniforms, linens, etc. and cleaning rations for prisoner use in order to
promote care of state property and avoid laundry inef?ciency, theft, and
expenditures on necessities).

Refocus on mission of promoting public safety by providing incentives to good
conduct through a revised disciplinary code. Focus on serious, real offenses.

As is commonly done in the business world, subcontract as much as possible
prison operations to private vendors. This may be done to different extents. Whole
unit subcontracting, or functions and departments such as food services,
cornmissary, security, laundry, maintenance, etc.

As much as possibilities permit, reward o?icer productivity and ef?ciency (as
performed in a business model setting) with incentives that may be of various
natures.

Audit operations. This may be done at no cost to the state by allowing private
interested organizations access to the facilities (6. g. religious, social or
humanitarian organizations). The current ACA audits are a travesty. Minor
cosmetic improvements and cleaning are performed prior to ACA audits. Few or

no auditors venture into living areas or other operations in random audits.

A Business Economics Approach to Prison System Challenges 10

18. Sell food prepared by food services.

19. View commissary as an income-producing function for bene?t of the state.
Currently, and contrary to all business sense, it is treated as a privilege, and
o?icers indulge in obstructing access to it.

20. Encourage business-oriented educational initiatives in addition to spiritually-

based initiatives.

Conclusion

In its current state, our State's prison system is a liability which must be turned
into an asset. The ?nancial and social cost of not taking action are a serious concern for
everyone, both inside and outside of prison. The implementation of a business and
economics oriented approach can be done through the cooperative effort of academia,
government, and interested parties such as officers, prisoners and other social
organizations, including the business sector. The cotton industry in Texas serves as an
example for the implementation of such a model. Finally, society in our State must be
aware of the lessons learned from the failure of communism, a system which disregarded
basic economic principles such as opportunity cost and incentives, and which sought
productivity by decree. Texas is at the forefront of entrepreneurial activity at a global
level and is leading prison transformation nationally through spiritually-based initiatives.
There is no reason why we cannot also lead the nation on transformation of the prison

system for the bene?t of society through a business-oriented approach.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Macroeconomics. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Rivioli, Pietra. The Travels of a T?Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the
Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Sons, Inc., 2005.

11

DUE JUSTICE



September 7, 2016

DUE JUSTICE

Imagine for a moment you are going to a doctor's of?ce for a medical problem.
When you get in to see him, you explain your and he prescribes medication.
You go home and follow his instructions, but your problem worsens and additional
arise. So you return to the doctor. You describe further and he
prescribes more medication. After going through this process three or four times, you
decide to visit a second doctor for a second opinion. You explain the entire situation to
him. He listens and does a few tests. Later, he explains that your previous doctor was
treating your rather than their cause, and that treatment was actually
contributing to the problem. In such a situation, would you change your original doctor?

America, and especially the state of Texas, is now experiencing a similar
compounding problem. It is not, however, a medical issue that is affecting the health of
our nation; it is a criminal one, made increasingly worse by our very methods of dealing
with it. But as dire as the problem is, it can be solved. A necessary part of the solution
will be viewing the situation with impartial eyes?that is, with a neutral and ?esh
approach and a willingness to question old ideas. Bad ideas, diagnoses, and
methodologies can be corrected only by questioning the premises at their root?
something our archaic justice system badly needs today, and something that no one is
doing. At best, our lawmakers and our policymakers simply take the system for granted
as is, ineffectually treating after via legislative session after
legislative session. The root cause must be addressed.

Today, the American prison system has the largest per capita prison population in the

world, housing nearly 25% of the world's prisoners (150,000 of which reside in Texas). In

Due Justice Prison Proposal 2

the land of the free, 756 Americans out of every 100,000 are incarcerated. One in every
31 Americans are under some kind of correctional supervision. How did America go from
being the most productive nation on earth to, as it seems, the most criminal? The answer
lies in America?s approach to this issue, via ?awed legislation (a result of rampant
misdiagnosis), faulty and unjust courtroom policies, and backwards prisons?all costing
citizens many billions of dollars a year, and leaving them frightened, cynical, and, often,
ashamed of being human. And the problem only worsens.

Simply stated, our justice system is not working?more than helping, it is actually
hurting society. At all levels, the system is operating on scores of unchecked premises,
and it is time to take a long look at them, to identify and question the underlying
assumptions that our justice system is built on, and to determine Whether they are right or
wrong; it is time to look at its principles and their implications and see what these
principles are actually achieving today. Moreover, it is time that we determine exactly
what, as a society, we want our justice system to achieve and to identify the principles
that will achieve that most effectively?and then we must institute them. For instance, do
we want our justice system to be a temporary repository and breeding ground for
criminals, a roach?s nest of taxpayer subsidized immorality, at a massive emotional,
and ?nancial cost to our society? If so, we have achieved that. Or do we
want a bustling environment of improvement and productivity, a self-sustaining
institution at little or no cost to the taxpayer, a justice system with a tendency toward
alleviating (rather than propagating) crime? A system that fosters, demands, and rewards

virtue, which means a system that discourages, rejects, and penalizes vice?that is, a

Due Justice Prison Proposal 3

system that contributes to the overall health of our society? If so, it is time to take a hard
look at our current system and to question its every aspect, to acknowledge that taking
things for granted is not a viable solution to any problem.

Following is a brief (due to space constraints) delineation of the problems, errors,
and unchecked premises of the three levels of our justice system, along with some

solutions to these problems.

Bad LegislatiOn

Year after year, our legislative bodies enact one reactionary measure after another,
exploding the prison population and exacerbating an already dire problem. Criminals are
blamed and damned while the justice system itself is never questioned?and neither is the
cause of crime (which itself is an effect). As the last ?fteen years of policy attests, our
lawmakers have given little or no thought to proactive measures, instead favoring
retention over prevention, and giving precedence not to reform (the only way to heal the
problem) but to a range of time. Left unchecked, these problems only worsen with time.
It is never asked whether or not our prisons are effective?that is, whether or not they do
anything other than house and breed criminals (Whether they help to eliminate, rather
than propagate, crime, for instance). Prisons and their hidden happenings are simply
taken for granted, never questioned. The incorrigibility of criminals is also taken for
granted. If there is a problem, it is assumed that the full fault lies with criminals alone.
Spiritual, philosophical, and cultural considerations are left unconsidered.

Furthermore, it is never considered whether or not our treatment of criminals (our

Due Justice Prison Proposal 4

methods and systems for dealing with them) is ineifective. We never consider whether or
not the criminal justice system has failed society?of which criminals, like it or not, are a
part. Our lawmakers and society are in agreement, thinking that criminals deserve no
consideration whatever. Even if this is proper and right, they forget that the innocent
citizens of the country do deserve consideration. But these citizens do not realize that the
current thinking, laws, and policies of our justice system are not helping to heal but are
actually hurting innocent citizens in ever-increasing numbers?just ask those on the
receiving end of our recidivism rates, when new victims are created.

Our lawmakers seem to have one goal in mind: lock ?em up and throw away the key.
They have pursued this course of action diligently, without bothering to question the
implications of this principle, without bothering or caring to know what this policy will
actually achieve. It is obvious that the goal has been to punish, not correct (in Texas, they
even changed the name of the prison system to re?ect this: the Texas Department of
Corrections became the Texas Department of Criminal Justice). But punish to what end?

What good is punishment without correction, without instruction? You do not
punish a child without explaining why. If you do, you are not helping the child, you are
hurting him. Punishment without instruction breeds confusion, resentment, and
recalcitrant behavior (the opposite of correction). You say that a man isn't a child? Well,
perhaps not physically. The fact is, if he commits a crime, he has thinking errors, an
obvious lack of proper understanding, a need of instruction if he is to correct the
problem. You say that a criminal does not deserve to be taught? Well, what of our

innocent citizens? Do they deserve the fullest degree of safety, lawfulness, and peace that

Due Justice Prison Proposal 5

we can achieve in our society? If so, shouldn't we work toward creating a system that
helps to achieve this, instead of contributing to its antithesis? Remember that most
inmates are going to be released eventually (95% of them). Exactly what kind of people
are our prisons producing? Do we really want unreforrned inmates paroling to our
neighborhoods? Time alone does not beget reformation (the only sure way to curb crime).
Harsh punishments certainly do not work, either, to say nothing of the role that justice, or
injustice, plays in such a policy.

One of the worst assumptions of our justice system is that time served constitutes
justice. Thus, the goal of our present justice system is to mete out time as punishment and
reparation. Punishment? Perhaps, but punishment alone does not eliminate the problem,
which means that society will likely suffer again at the hands of the punished (there is a
65% chance, since this is the national current recidivism rate). Reparation? At whose
expense? It costs Texas taxpayers almost $20,000 a year to house an inmate. It does not
cost the inmate a dime. He is not paying a debt?he is debt, a liability in more ways than
one. And what is reparation anyway? The only true reparation is recognition and
correction of an injustice. The best thing a? criminal can do to pay a debt to society is to
learn from his mistake, which means to repair within himself the error in thinking that
made it possible and thus permanently correct the error. After the fact, the victim's
quintessential right is simply not to have been harmed in vain, and that some reduction in
future criminalization is gained. This can only be done via rehabilitation.

The present system does nothing to facilitate this focus on rehabilitation. In fact, the

system, purposely or not, reinforces the criminals' errors, rewards them, encourages them,

Due Justice Prison Proposal 6

and facilitates the prOpagation of them (bad ideas spread like viruses, infecting people at
compounding rates). This serves not justice but injustice. In this system, injustice wins.
Our lawmakers focus on punishing criminals?and they do punish them, and all society
as well. Instead of hatred of criminals, it would be better to hate the ideas that made them

criminals in the ?rst place. The goal of a justice system should be reform.

Faulty And Unjust Courtroom Policies

The goal of our courts (the second level of the justice system) should also be justice.
In this system, however, justice has been an ideal that has long been out of reach. To
illustrate this, consider the following example of two robbery cases, virtually identical in
all the circumstances, wherein one jury hands down ?ve years (the minimum), and the
other jury hands down a life sentence (the maximum). Is true justice the average of the
two and something neither set of criminals and victims received, or one of the two, which
one set of criminal received at the exclusion of the other? Either way, there was a
miscarriage of justice somewhere! To make the jury sacrosanct as the arbiter of justice is
to harness a contradiction. The above example highlights the subjectivity they may use to
arrive at their decision. Yet justice is a constant?those who deserve the same must get
the same?while subjectivity is anything but constant. This dynamic simply reinforces
injustice. As it is said, two wrongs do not make a right. The criminal who is being held
accountable for his injustice sees the system itself as hypocritical and enters the prison
system embittered by it and resent?il of it. This does not contribute to morality, but

undermines it, as the prisoner goes to prison to do his time, thinking that unfairness

Due Justice Prison Proposal 7

(injustice) is a natural part of life.

Backwards Prisons

More inverted principles and injustices follow as we get to the third level of our
justice system: the prisons.

The ?rst is a two-sided issue, the ?rst side of which, in a twist of irony, involves the
taxpayer. This is the 
dynamic. In this situation, the criminal
still gets something for nothing and the innocent members of society still get nothing or
less for $20,000 a year. No? You say that the taxpayers get justice served (a criminal
behind bars). Perhaps, and they also get injustice served in at least four ways:

1. As he (our criminal behind bars) steals from their funds by stealing things within
the prison system (bleach, burgers, etc.) to fund his shampoo and deodorant habit
(things which are not provided by the state)?or worse, steals to support his
cigarette and drug habit (which are provided by the state via the prison guards,
who are therefore guilty of the same crimes as those whom they guard).

2. By their having to subsidize his life in the ?rst place, as a ransom for him not to
plunder them.

3. By being victimized by a non-rehabilitated ex-con at the wrong end of a dark
alley?an ex-con who was indoctrinated by our criminal behind bars.

4. By being victimized by our criminal himself, freed after serving his thirty ?at

years (at a cost of $600,000 to you and other taxpayers) at the other wrong end of

Due Justice Prison Proposal 8

a dark alley.

Many taxpayers probably see this situation as a necessary evil. But this is simply
another unquestioned assumption. Taxpayers do not have to subsidize the lives of
criminals, because prisons can be, should be, and ought to be self-sustaining enterprises.

For instance, consider the other side of the subsidization issue. In the present system,
criminals come to prison and get something for nothing, which is what makes virtually all
of them criminals in the ?rst place. This situation serves only to reinforce the same
criminal predispositions?the same vices and mentality (the ?something for nothing? or
?steal value? mentality) that result in criminal behavior.

There are three kinds of criminals: stealers of value (the?, fraud, burglary, robbery,
and sex crimes); destroyers of value (murder, DWI, arson, manslaughter, Violent assault);
and corrupters of value, comprised mainly of drug dealers. All criminals have in common
the inability, or a lack of a proper understanding of how, to be properly productive, or else
to respect the fruits of other people's productivity. In the majority of cases, criminalism is
the result of a lack of existential ef?cacy, and the subsequent belief that one must take
value, whether by stealing, destroying, or corrupting, as one cannot create it.

Sadly, our justice system reinforces the ?steal value? mentality. One way they do this
is through instituting slavery in the prison, and thus stealing value from prisoners by
failing to justly reimburse their labors. By doing so, prison legitimizes the ?steal value?
mentality in the eyes of prisoners and hence reinforces it. Again, prison reinforces the
prisoner's idea that injustice, whether giving or receiving, is simply the way of the world.

Another way the steal value mentality is reinforced is through the poisonous, heretofore

Due Justice Prison Proposal 9

unquestioned assumption that criminals, when they come to prison, lose their capacity for
productivity. In fact, it is the opposite that a criminal should lose?when he comes to
prison, a criminal should lose his capacity for non-productivity. A prisoner should have to
work to support himself; he should have to earn his bread and water. If he were free, he
would have to do this, like every other man, or starve, or steal to support himself, which
is what most criminals decided to do, and which is one reason why, while in prison, they
should learn, more than any other thing, how to support themselves.

In prison, reform should be our highest goal, and thus productivity should he
demanded, fostered, and facilitated, as productivity is the gateway to morality and virtue.
Rehabilitation is the creation of value where no value previously existed. Value is created
through productivity. Prison should not subsidize criminalism by using its modus
operandi (taking value) to fund its adherents' lives, but should induce rehabilitation by
fostering the creation of value. When prisoners' value creations are validated by real
employment (not the ?take value? slave labor demanded now), they?ll develop self-
esteem, and then, esteem for others. They'll demand adherence to their own property
rights (which the creation of value?and rehabilitation?necessitates), and will adhere to
others' property rights. Only when a man can grasp the concept of self (contained in the
essence of their own value creations, and the values of character required to create them),
can he develop a respect for others. Creating value is the opposite of stealing and
destroying it, and, when it is fostered, loads the dice in favor of virtue and ultimate
reformation of character. This goes for every kind of criminal. The goal of our justice

system should be to incentivize virtue and morality and disincentivize vice and

Due Justice Prison Proposal 10

immorality. The primary means of doing this is through opening every avenue for
productivity?using capitalism as an agent of rehabilitation, and applying it as widely as
possible.

As a side bene?t, prisons can become self-suf?cient, and ?dividends? can be paid to
society in the form of victims' restitution outlays. Moreover, this model will come closer
to a perfection of justice?where it is so conspicuously absent?than any other schema.
Free markets, and their attention to reason and critical thought, have trumped, as regards
to justice, any political model to date.

This paper seeks to advocate the principle that rehabilitation is synonymous with
creation of value, and that very principle should be applied within a prison that fosters
and facilitates it. Prisons can and should be inhabited by men who are properly
productive and striving for morality. The prison itself should be in all ways a vibrant
marketplace, helping men learn how to help themselves.

Justice systems should be just, no more and no less; that is, they should be healthy
systems within their respective societies that contribute to goodness, virtue, justice, and

morality.

A PROPOSAL: FAITH-BASED UNIT

September 7, 2016

A Proposal: Faith?based Unit

In 1995 Carol Vance and Chuck Colson would visit the ?rst Christian-run
prison in the world. This prison (Humaita Prison) was located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The
prison had been transformed from one condemned by the Brazilian government because
of its high recidivism rate to a model for prison's worldwide. Its recidivism rate
had been reduced from 75% to 10%, and this drastic reversal could only be contributed to
the work of God.

At the time, Carol Vance was the director of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDJ C), and Chuck Colson was the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Colson's vision had been formed from his stay in federal prison (Alabama's Maxwell
Prison) for his involvement in the Watergate affair. While in prison Colson had made a
conscious decision to help change the lives of men locked up in America. Vance and
Colson, along with others, went to observe what was transpiring in this prison to
determine if it might have an effect in America. After their initial visit they were
encouraged and decided to launch an attempt at ?nding someone one who would be
willing to try it in America. Texas would take them up, and the Carol Vance Unit would
become a faith-based prison Where the worldview of prisoners would hopefully be
changed.

Prison's throughout America and the world have typically been void of
constructive programs that would equip prisoners to reenter society with the hope of a
better life. Here in Texas, those in control have instituted what has become known as
faith-based living areas. These areas are set aside for prisoners who would like to change

their lives. There are certain programs that they must complete in order to graduate the

A Proposal: Faith-based Unit 2

overall program, but the only requirement is they show up; participation is not required.
Another problem is that there exists little or no accountability; there is no retribution for
behavior that is not conducive to the programs objectives. These men continue to exhibit
the same behavior. It is my belief that those who fail to conform to the program should be
removed. I cannot speak for the other units, but here at Darrington I see little or no
change in the men on the faith-based living area.

It will be the thrust of this proposal to develop a plan for a faith-based initiative
that would encapsulate the entire unit. There was a study preformed at the University of
that revealed ?ve spiritual transformation themes that are consistent with
characteristics long associated with offender rehabilitation: 1) I'm not who I used to be; 2)
spiritual growth; 3) God versus the prison code; 4) positive outlook on life; and 5) the
need to give back to society. We are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), but we all fall
short of that image. But through what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross at Calvary we
all have the opportunity for a new life. It is through conversion (being born again) that Corint. 5:17). This writer understands the
obstacles that have to be overcome, but with the help of the administration and volunteers
they can be overcome.

There is presently a program?Southwestem Baptist Theological Seminary
place at the Danington Unit, training men to go out into the prisons of
Texas with the intention of changing the prison culture. Change occurs through
conversion, and it is my intention to prove that true conversion will change the lives of

men. The key is conversion, because genuine conversion is a change in the heart of the

A Proposal: Faith-based Unit

recipient. Some believe we can fake it to make it, but I can assure you that true
conversion cannot be faked.

It will be years before an evaluation can be determined on the program now in
place. The program that is now on going at the Carol Vance unit has showed some signs
of success. The men involved in the program are monitored ?around the clock? for 16 to
24 months in the prison environment and then an additional 6 to 12 months upon release.
Of those who successfully completed this program it has been reported that the
recidivism rate was 8% up to three years out, whereas those who did not complete the
program was signi?cantly higher at 35%. It is my belief that with conversion and a strict
regiment of faith-based initiatives that a man can return to society and become a
productive citizen.

What will follow is a proposed outline of how this writer envisions this prison
(program) to be structured, because along with conversion, structure is another key
ingredient to the success of this initiative. On May 9, 2016, graduated their
second class of offenders with a Bachelors Degree of Science in Biblical Studies. Lt.
Governor Dan Patrick would proclaim that the program at the Darrington unit was the
?agship of programs now in place in Texas.

The big difference between the Carol Vance unit and what is being proposed
here is the people on this unit will not be placed there by the parole board, nor will they
be leaving upon completion, but will become teachers and mentors for those that follow
them. The people who go to the Carol Vance unit understand that they will be released.

What is being proposed here is a prison where men can learn to accept responsibility for

A Proposal: Faith-based Unit 4

their actions and to be held accountable for their behavior inside prison.
What would a faith-based unit look like and what are its bene?ts to the State of

Texas and its citizens.

Faith?based Unit:
Who gets to go?

1) Must earn your way there.
a) conduct
b) Religious participation/recommendations
- 2)Will all religions be accepted?
a) Yes, but the curriculum will be Christian since America is a Christian
nation.
b) The particulars will be decided by those in authority.
- 3)What are the benefits to 
a) A safe work environment for its employees;
b) Cost effective. TDCJ may forgo some of the departments that will not be
needed (segregation, gang control).
c) A productive workforce, since everyone will be required to work.
- 4)What are the bene?ts for the taxpayers/society?
a)Cost
b)The thought that the parole board is releasing a redeemed man.
- 5)What are the bene?ts for the offenders?

a)A structured environment where their day-to-day activities are in place.

A Proposal: Faith-based Unit 5

b)An environment conducive to studying about Christ and how to become
more Christlike.
c)They will learn how to live a moral life that will gain the respect of not

only their families but also their peers.

- 6)Requirements that the participant must agree to.
a)If they do not have a GED they must attend school.
b)If they have a GED or High School diploma they will be encouraged to
attend college level classes, or to tutor those who need it.
c)If they have a college degree or our working on one, they must tutor
others.
d)Those who do not which to attend college must learn a trade unless they
already have an employable skill, then they can help train others.
e)Church attendance/ Sunday school are mandatory unless with an excused
absence.
?Must work?slacking will not be tolerated.
g)Must be willing to give of yourself. Each man will be held accountable
for his contributions to the community. The environment will be dynamic, and
men will be encouraged to set goals (long and short term goals). We want to
develop a community that other men want to be a part of. In so doing we will be
developing men with moral character, men the parole board will feel

comfortable in releasing. This will in essence create an environment system-

A Proposal: Faith-based Unit 6

wide, where character is being changed, which will ultimately help change the
culture in prison.

h)Faith?based wings are a great contribution to this institution, but they are
limited because of outside in?uences, and in some cases they lack discipline. It
is imperative that the Christian's life is disciplined at all times, because once they
learn a certain behavior will not be tolerated, the behavior can be changed/or the

individual will have to suffer the consequences.

- 7)Other programs
a)With the help and approval of TDCJ of?cials, other programs would be
developed and instituted by offenders (at no cost to taxpayers), that would be
conducive to developing the character of men who possess high moral values.
These programs would be biblically motivated, relying solely on the Bible for
direction and instruction. These programs could be overseen by the Chaplaincy
department already in place, along with Willing Christian volunteers.
- 8)The one overriding characteristic of this program would be
discipline/ structure
a)This is a dynamic that has been absent in the lives of most men in prison.
Certain types of behaviors would carry zero tolerance, and these behaviors
would be established by a hierarchy. There would exist no room for doubt about
there consequences. Men striving for perfection must be willing to accept full

responsibility for their behavior.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PRISON REFORM

September 7, 2016

SUGGESTIONS FOR PRISON REFORM

Incarceration is an interesting reality in these United States and sadly, mostly
ineffectual. Perhaps its most interesting and relevant feature is the persistent and
pervasive state of confusion in which it resides and thrives. This inherent vegetative state
of confusion is pervasive throughout the entirety of our American criminal justice system.
Criminal justice practice and policy within our society is arguably one of the world's most
contradictory and banal. It is thought that our criminal justice system with its elaborate,
extensive, and expensive penal system component serves to ensure and even enhance our
quality of life and society as a whole. We as Americans even exalt our system of justice
as vastly superior to that of the rest of the worldlarge utterly
ignorant to the confused and contradictory state of its existence.

The electorate, and public at large, are clear in their expectations regarding
criminal justice response. So too, are the actors and operators within our criminal justice
and penal systems. All claim a shared set of values and goals, yet each have differing
expectations and motives based solely upon their own self interest. There is an inherent
symbiosis amongst these various entities, and it is unclear who develops whose
expectations. An interesting dynamic at work, for sure. Nevertheless, each attempts to
in?uence the other purely in the service of their own interest. However, there is a
disparity between their interests which escapes discussion. This disparity demonstrates an
absence of coherence, and yet such is not readily apparent, perhaps because of their
differing interest and expectations. This exaggerated state of confusion?with its
competing interests, expectations, and motives?has fostered and birthed a system

susceptible to corruption, exploitation, and inefficiencies.

Suggestions for Prison Reform 2

Incarceration as it is today fosters a sense of hopelessness amongst almost all
those within its reach, which presently encompasses millions of Americans. This
hopelessness is the result of poor performing criminal justice systems and the populace's
ignorance of the con?ict between their interests and the interests of a massive prison
industrial complex. This becomes most apparent in the cost of retum ratios, the attitudes
of the criminal justice system's operators, and the attitudes purposely fostered among the
public at large. Sadly, those most adversely affected by this national tragedy are the
millions of children and family members of those incarcerated, as well as their
communities. This too unduly burdens our quality of life as Americans and sadly, our
standing within the world's community of nations. Those who pro?t most from such
misery are mostly indifferent to the dismal return their efforts produce because of
inappropriate oversight and expectation development pervasive throughout the entirety of
the criminal justice system. US. Attorney General Eric Holder, prior to his departure
from office, asserted in national speech about the current state of the American criminal
justice system, that ?the jig is up, our criminal justice system is broken and in need of
repair.? Unfortunately, he did not offer much in the way of speci?cs, but in light of recent
events it quickly becomes evident what some of the issues are: race, a failed war strategy
against the problem of drugs, and the huge industrial complex that has developed around
incarceration.

I have been incarcerated for seven years and in this time I have been assigned
to ?ve different units within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice System (TDCJ).

Having had no prior experience with incarceration or the criminal justice system I

Suggestions for Prison Reform 3

possessed no valid frame of reference in which to develop expectations or interpret my
experiences coming into the system. I am, however, a veteran so I believed this
experience would bene?t me to some extent. There are after all many similarities
between the two. Both experiences involve large groups of individuals from varied
backgrounds (staff and inmates) and both are parts of large bureaucratic operations with
strict standards of conduct (both official and unof?cial such as those unique to prison).
My expectations were profoundly incorrect and I found myself wholly ill-equipped for
what confronted me.

After being incorporated into the TDCJ system over these intervening years, I
have had to learn a lot in order to adapt. An inmate must learn quickly to identify and
understand the various dynamics that are unique to each unit. In fact, identifying and
understanding the dynamics of each unit are essential to survival, peace of mind, and
ultimately, the overall success of their incarceration. Strangely, the operation of each unit
is unique and different from one another. The primary de?ning in?uences of a
given unit's operation are the cultural realities of the indigenous p0pulation of local
communities who comprise the bulk of its workforce and the unit leadership. Unit
leadership, ultimately, has the greatest in?uence upon operations in addition to the
prevailing attitudes of the staff and inmate population.

Attitudes re?ect leadership: this is an important truth that applies to unit staff
and populace as well. An individual corrections of?cer's attitude is shaped early in their
career and evolves little over the course of their career. This is perhaps how or why

?awed reasoning, practice, and attitudes become so entrenched within penal systems. An

Suggestions for Prison Reform 4

individual corrections officer will invariably progress through the rank structure, and
some eventually will obtain senior administrative positions. A unit's line of?cers today
will be a unit's Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, and even Wardens tomorrow. Their
attitudes and ethics were in?uenced and shaped by the prevailing attitudes and ethics of
those around them; both inmate and other staff. As a result of this reality there exists a
pervasiveness to ?awed reasoning and professionalism that permeates the entirety of
many penal systems.

There are organizational stratagems that could act as a check to interrupt the
pervasiveness of unprofessional and counterproductive staff reasoning and actions.
Hiring requirements, for example, could be strengthened by requiring advanced degrees
for senior unit level positions. A bifurcated hierarchy at the unit level would complement
such a structure. For example, Wardens should be hired from outside the system and not
required to have Correctional Of?cer experience. So too should senior administrators
have advanced degrees or expertise in relevant areas of study or training such as business,
social work, sociology, criminology, etc. Performance based compensation packages
might also prove effective in not only performance but recruitment as well. This kind of
structure would not eliminate or sti?e professional development for lower level
correctional staff, but would instead act as a check to interrupt the cycle of
unprofessionalism and soured attitudes that presently exist. So too would such promote
and ensure greater overall operational ef?ciency.

This is not a novel concept because such would mirror plenty of other similar

and successful models. The military is perhaps the best example, but certainly not the

Suggestions for Prison Reform 5

only as the private sector offers numerous examples as well. In fact, advanced degree and
or practical expertise requirements are common place. So too are performance based
compensation packages. The current practices and structure are indeed in need of some
sort of strengthening moving forward. Simply locking up people for longer and longer

6

periods is unsustainable and will invariably fail. Indeed Eric Holder is correct? ?the jig is

up and our criminal justice system is broken.?