Christopher Zoukis's Blog, page 3
May 9, 2018
Will Congress, Administration Let Inmate Pell Grants Expire This Year?
By Christopher Zoukis
The Higher Education Act of 1965 created the Pell Grant program, designed to help low-income students afford college; an amendment to that law in 1972 explicitly made inmates eligible to apply for Pell grants, now the federal government’s largest educational assistance program for college students.
But a provision added by Congress to a 1994 crime bill and signed into law by President Clinton cut off Pell grants for post-secondary education for local, state and federal inmates. At that time, two- and four-year colleges were receiving a total of approximately $35 million for courses they were providing to about 23,000 inmates; that was under 1% of the Pell program’s overall funding of over $6 billion that year.
But backers of ending inmates’ eligibility for Pell grants portrayed that as a choice between “kids versus cons.” An upsurge in violent crime, and dissatisfaction with the performance of some schools, especially for-profit ones, helped the crime bill pass with significant bipartisan support.
Despite that the crime law’s flat prohibition against awarded a basic Pell grant to “any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution,” over two decades after the eligibility cut-off, President Obama in July 2015 authorized the Departments of Education and Justice to create what was described as a three-to-five year “pilot program” to resume making some inmates eligible for Pell grants.
Although that action was controversial with some conservatives, including some supporting criminal justice and sentencing reform, the administration justified the initiative end education law provisions allowing rule waivers to test experimental programs. Under the revived program, known as the Second Chance Pell Pilot Program.
On a personal note, I’ve written for years about the benefits education can bring inmates, and there’s a substantial body of evidence backing that up. For example, a 2013 Rand Corporation study found that inmates who took part in educational programs while they were incarcerated after being released had not only better employment prospects, but also substantially lower recidivism. (Part of the Obama administration’s rationale for its “experimental” revival of Pell grants was to document the positive effects of education during incarceration.)
Looking at the issue just from a dollar-and-cents approach, incarceration is many times more expensive than Pell or similar educational assistance programs, so it shouldn’t be hard to show educating inmates actually saves money. The Rand study researchers, for example, estimated each dollar spent on prisoner education would save between $4 and $5 in future costs.
Continuing the eligibility of inmates for Pell grants beyond the end of this year will require action by the administration or Congress, however. Thus far, both Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (aside from a passing mention months ago that Pell grants for inmates sounded to her like a “very good and interesting possibility”) and the White House (except for very general remarks about the value of promoting ex-inmates’ re-entry into society) have been noncommittal on specific plans to keep inmates eligible for Pell grants.
Even though 2018 is not yet halfway over, with the Congressional calendar shortened by mid-term elections, if the powers that be have any real intent of keeping Pell grant eligibility, they have no time to lose in making and announcing their plans.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 created the Pell Grant program, designed to help low-income students afford college; an amendment to that law in 1972 explicitly made inmates eligible to apply for Pell grants, now the federal government’s largest educational assistance program for college students.
But a provision added by Congress to a 1994 crime bill and signed into law by President Clinton cut off Pell grants for post-secondary education for local, state and federal inmates. At that time, two- and four-year colleges were receiving a total of approximately $35 million for courses they were providing to about 23,000 inmates; that was under 1% of the Pell program’s overall funding of over $6 billion that year.
But backers of ending inmates’ eligibility for Pell grants portrayed that as a choice between “kids versus cons.” An upsurge in violent crime, and dissatisfaction with the performance of some schools, especially for-profit ones, helped the crime bill pass with significant bipartisan support.
Despite that the crime law’s flat prohibition against awarded a basic Pell grant to “any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution,” over two decades after the eligibility cut-off, President Obama in July 2015 authorized the Departments of Education and Justice to create what was described as a three-to-five year “pilot program” to resume making some inmates eligible for Pell grants.
Although that action was controversial with some conservatives, including some supporting criminal justice and sentencing reform, the administration justified the initiative end education law provisions allowing rule waivers to test experimental programs. Under the revived program, known as the Second Chance Pell Pilot Program.
On a personal note, I’ve written for years about the benefits education can bring inmates, and there’s a substantial body of evidence backing that up. For example, a 2013 Rand Corporation study found that inmates who took part in educational programs while they were incarcerated after being released had not only better employment prospects, but also substantially lower recidivism. (Part of the Obama administration’s rationale for its “experimental” revival of Pell grants was to document the positive effects of education during incarceration.)
Looking at the issue just from a dollar-and-cents approach, incarceration is many times more expensive than Pell or similar educational assistance programs, so it shouldn’t be hard to show educating inmates actually saves money. The Rand study researchers, for example, estimated each dollar spent on prisoner education would save between $4 and $5 in future costs.
Continuing the eligibility of inmates for Pell grants beyond the end of this year will require action by the administration or Congress, however. Thus far, both Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (aside from a passing mention months ago that Pell grants for inmates sounded to her like a “very good and interesting possibility”) and the White House (except for very general remarks about the value of promoting ex-inmates’ re-entry into society) have been noncommittal on specific plans to keep inmates eligible for Pell grants.
Even though 2018 is not yet halfway over, with the Congressional calendar shortened by mid-term elections, if the powers that be have any real intent of keeping Pell grant eligibility, they have no time to lose in making and announcing their plans.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
April 25, 2018
New Law in Florida Brings More Opportunities for Inmates
Until recently, state funds could not be used for prison education programs. Now, Governor Rick Scott has changed that by signing a bill allowing the Florida Department of Corrections to partner with colleges and local school districts to provide education to inmates under a program called Postsecondary Workforce Education (PWE). Florida inmates with 24 months or less on their sentence are eligible for the program.
With access to public schools, Florida Virtual School (FLVS), and some charter schools, the PWE program is extensive, offering everything from career certification programs and apprenticeships to degree programs.
Access to FLVS is an innovative option. Providing fully accredited courses in a personalized online learning environment, FLVS students can choose from more than 150 courses. All the core courses (English, math, science, physical education, and social studies) are available, as are electives, such as creative photography, journalism, personal and family finance, theater, cinema and film production, parenting skills, peer counselling and more.
Rep. Larry Ahern (R-Seminole) supports the new law. “One of the biggest challenges anyone has – and especially someone who’s been in the prison system–is finding a job. Especially at today’s skill level, minimum requirements are a high school diploma, which some of these men and women have not obtained.”
Lois M. Davis, a senior policy researcher and professor with Pardee RAND Graduate School, participated in an NPR (National Public Radio Inc.) interview about the power of prisoner education.
“When we think about the school-to-prison pipeline story—about the failure of the educational attainment for many of these individuals—when they get to prison it is a chance to address those deficits,” she said.
Davis went on to note that after analyzing 30 years research, she and her team found a 13 per cent reduction of reincarceration for inmates that participated in any type of prison education program (adult education, GED, college courses, vocational training), and a 16 per cent reduction for inmates that took post-secondary training. She calls these numbers “substantial reductions.”
The benefits of prisoner education programs extend to communities too.
“Education is a relatively low-cost program you can provide to inmates. But, when you look simply at direct costs, we find that for every dollar invested in a prison education program will ultimately save taxpayers between $4 and $5 in reincarceration costs. That’s an enormous savings,” said Davis.
Any way you look at it, PWE simply makes sense. In fact, the new law allowing state funds for prisoner education is the type of effective common sense that will make a measurable difference in the lives of inmates, and the communities they join after release. PWE uses existing, proven channels of education to educate prisoners. It’s a solution that is simple and elegant in its design and execution–use something already working to solve an existing problem.
As Florida releases educated prisoners with the skills to hold down a job and take care of themselves, perhaps other states will take note, enact similar bills, and continue to make headway in the ongoing issue of prisoner education.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
With access to public schools, Florida Virtual School (FLVS), and some charter schools, the PWE program is extensive, offering everything from career certification programs and apprenticeships to degree programs.
Access to FLVS is an innovative option. Providing fully accredited courses in a personalized online learning environment, FLVS students can choose from more than 150 courses. All the core courses (English, math, science, physical education, and social studies) are available, as are electives, such as creative photography, journalism, personal and family finance, theater, cinema and film production, parenting skills, peer counselling and more.
Rep. Larry Ahern (R-Seminole) supports the new law. “One of the biggest challenges anyone has – and especially someone who’s been in the prison system–is finding a job. Especially at today’s skill level, minimum requirements are a high school diploma, which some of these men and women have not obtained.”
Lois M. Davis, a senior policy researcher and professor with Pardee RAND Graduate School, participated in an NPR (National Public Radio Inc.) interview about the power of prisoner education.
“When we think about the school-to-prison pipeline story—about the failure of the educational attainment for many of these individuals—when they get to prison it is a chance to address those deficits,” she said.
Davis went on to note that after analyzing 30 years research, she and her team found a 13 per cent reduction of reincarceration for inmates that participated in any type of prison education program (adult education, GED, college courses, vocational training), and a 16 per cent reduction for inmates that took post-secondary training. She calls these numbers “substantial reductions.”
The benefits of prisoner education programs extend to communities too.
“Education is a relatively low-cost program you can provide to inmates. But, when you look simply at direct costs, we find that for every dollar invested in a prison education program will ultimately save taxpayers between $4 and $5 in reincarceration costs. That’s an enormous savings,” said Davis.
Any way you look at it, PWE simply makes sense. In fact, the new law allowing state funds for prisoner education is the type of effective common sense that will make a measurable difference in the lives of inmates, and the communities they join after release. PWE uses existing, proven channels of education to educate prisoners. It’s a solution that is simple and elegant in its design and execution–use something already working to solve an existing problem.
As Florida releases educated prisoners with the skills to hold down a job and take care of themselves, perhaps other states will take note, enact similar bills, and continue to make headway in the ongoing issue of prisoner education.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
April 18, 2018
Can Early Education Funding Prevent Crime?
By Christopher Zoukis
In early April, law enforcement members and members of the Chester County state legislative delegation met to discuss the impact pre-K funding could have on future crime.
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, one of the committees in the Council for a Strong America network, is a non-profit, bipartisan organization made up of law enforcement, retired military personnel, business leaders, religious leader, coaches, and athletes. Together, the diverse group promotes solutions for good American citizenship among the next generation.
During the meeting in April, the delegation from Fight Crime referenced their 2017 report, Pre-K Key to Cutting Pennsylvania Prison Costs and Boosting School Success. The report notes, “State and national research studies show that quality early learning programs have been proven to reduce disadvantages, resulting in fewer behavior problems, better school outcomes, increased high school graduation rates, and ultimately less criminal activity.” According to the report, more than $244 million in society-driven benefits could be realized simply by increasing access to high-quality pre-K programs.
With America housing 22 per cent of the world’s prison population, despite only making up 5 per cent of the world’s population, it’s clear that something in the prison system is not adding up. The demographics of prisons across the nation are skewed to people of color and disenfranchised persons – put bluntly, if you are not white and/or you are poor, you are more likely to go to jail.
Sadly, persons of color remain firm targets of discrimination when it comes to hiring and employment (Harvard Business Review cites no change in hiring discrimination against black Americans over the past 25 years). With a harder time gaining meaningful employment, persons of color make up the larger share of Americans living in poverty – and that brings us full circle. Not being white and being poor greatly increases ones’ chances of going to prison in America – and the current system is a cycle designed to keep things that way.
While policy changes and a move from for-profit prison systems will go a long way in aligning America’s prisons with more progressive countries, education remains a key driver in preventing citizens from going to jail in the first place, in becoming a more attractive prospect for hire, and in reducing recidivism. To that end, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids wants to see better educational opportunities across the board starting early – very early.
“No child is destined at birth to end up in jail,” Sherriff Carolyn Welsh said at the above-noted meeting.
“Strategic investments of public dollars into education can save taxpayers billions of dollars in the longer run, by decreasing levels of welfare, crime and other challenges facing our society. This is a classic (policy) case that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound (and then some) in cure,” added State Rep. Duane Milne. “The connection between well-funding early education initiatives and the later effects on reducing the likelihood of someone engaging in criminal activity and becoming a ‘regular’ of the criminal justice system is clear, convincing and compelling.”
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids suggests that a $40 million boost in quality pre-K funding in the 2018-2019 budget would translate into 4,400 more children receiving their best educational head start.
Currently, approximately 106,000 three- and four- year-olds in Pennsylvania, and 3,500 children in Chester County do not have access to quality pre-K education. That’s a whole lot of youngers staring down the dreaded school-to-prison pipeline, but it’s also a reality that can be averted for many of them with the simple allocation of dollars into early education.
“Children who attend high-quality learning programs will enter kindergarten ready to learn, do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and college, and become thriving citizens within the community,” noted Christine Fox, curriculum director for Warwick Child Care Center. And she is absolutely right.
This article originally appeared in BlogCritics.org.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
In early April, law enforcement members and members of the Chester County state legislative delegation met to discuss the impact pre-K funding could have on future crime.
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, one of the committees in the Council for a Strong America network, is a non-profit, bipartisan organization made up of law enforcement, retired military personnel, business leaders, religious leader, coaches, and athletes. Together, the diverse group promotes solutions for good American citizenship among the next generation.
During the meeting in April, the delegation from Fight Crime referenced their 2017 report, Pre-K Key to Cutting Pennsylvania Prison Costs and Boosting School Success. The report notes, “State and national research studies show that quality early learning programs have been proven to reduce disadvantages, resulting in fewer behavior problems, better school outcomes, increased high school graduation rates, and ultimately less criminal activity.” According to the report, more than $244 million in society-driven benefits could be realized simply by increasing access to high-quality pre-K programs.
With America housing 22 per cent of the world’s prison population, despite only making up 5 per cent of the world’s population, it’s clear that something in the prison system is not adding up. The demographics of prisons across the nation are skewed to people of color and disenfranchised persons – put bluntly, if you are not white and/or you are poor, you are more likely to go to jail.
Sadly, persons of color remain firm targets of discrimination when it comes to hiring and employment (Harvard Business Review cites no change in hiring discrimination against black Americans over the past 25 years). With a harder time gaining meaningful employment, persons of color make up the larger share of Americans living in poverty – and that brings us full circle. Not being white and being poor greatly increases ones’ chances of going to prison in America – and the current system is a cycle designed to keep things that way.
While policy changes and a move from for-profit prison systems will go a long way in aligning America’s prisons with more progressive countries, education remains a key driver in preventing citizens from going to jail in the first place, in becoming a more attractive prospect for hire, and in reducing recidivism. To that end, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids wants to see better educational opportunities across the board starting early – very early.
“No child is destined at birth to end up in jail,” Sherriff Carolyn Welsh said at the above-noted meeting.
“Strategic investments of public dollars into education can save taxpayers billions of dollars in the longer run, by decreasing levels of welfare, crime and other challenges facing our society. This is a classic (policy) case that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound (and then some) in cure,” added State Rep. Duane Milne. “The connection between well-funding early education initiatives and the later effects on reducing the likelihood of someone engaging in criminal activity and becoming a ‘regular’ of the criminal justice system is clear, convincing and compelling.”
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids suggests that a $40 million boost in quality pre-K funding in the 2018-2019 budget would translate into 4,400 more children receiving their best educational head start.
Currently, approximately 106,000 three- and four- year-olds in Pennsylvania, and 3,500 children in Chester County do not have access to quality pre-K education. That’s a whole lot of youngers staring down the dreaded school-to-prison pipeline, but it’s also a reality that can be averted for many of them with the simple allocation of dollars into early education.
“Children who attend high-quality learning programs will enter kindergarten ready to learn, do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and college, and become thriving citizens within the community,” noted Christine Fox, curriculum director for Warwick Child Care Center. And she is absolutely right.
This article originally appeared in BlogCritics.org.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
April 11, 2018
At an Oregon Prison Skimping on Flu Shots, One Inmate Dies, 44 Get Sick
By Christopher Zoukis
According to federal health officials, the recent flu season is proving to be the worst since 2009’s devastating H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)estimate the current flu season, with its dominant H3N2 strain, will be at least as bad as what they term the “moderately severe” 2014-15 flu season, when 34 million people in this country were sickened, over 700,000 were hospitalized, and about 56,000 died from effects of the flu.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), since at least November 2013, has issued clinical practice guidelinesfor federal prisons on how to prevent and deal with flu seasons. The BOP guidelines call vaccination “the most critical measure” for preventing seasonal flu, noting CDC’s recommendation everyone over the age of six months get vaccinated against flu. The guidelines also call for federal prisons to offer flu vaccination to all inmates and staff, and ensure all inmates are informed, through the facility’s handbook, flyers and electronic announcements, that flu shots are available and when they can be obtained.
Those guidelines only cover federal prisons, however, so state and local prisons and jails must adopt and carry out their own policies. The survivors of a female inmate at Coffee Creek Correctional Institution in Wilsonville, Oregon are going to court, claiming 53-year-old Tina Ferri died there in January because in her first few months at the prison, she did not receive a flu vaccination, and after contracting influenza, did not get timely medical treatment. Her family claims Ferri, one of 44 inmates at the facility sickened by flu, had severe but untreated flu (reportedly coughing up blood), which led to pneumonia in both lungs, from which a staph infection resulted, ultimately causing multiple organ failure.
Oregon’s main health agency echoes CDC’s advice that everyone older than six months should get vaccinated for influenza. The Oregon Department of Corrections(ODOC), however, despite claiming it recommends all inmates receive flu vaccinations, could not document how it provides that advice; one agency spokesperson said there was no written policy on the issue. No announcement of the availability or advisability of flu shots was published in the facility’s monthly newsletter, and other inmates and ODOC records say any notification was limited to relatively few inmates with conditions (such as advanced age or other medical conditions), making them especially vulnerable to a flu infection.
Purchasing records also show that state’s lackadaisical approach to giving flu shots. ODOC gave conflicting figures on how many flu shots it ordered, at about $7 apiece, for its Coffee Creek prison (saying at one time 519 and at another 700). It also claimed not to be able easily to retrieve records of how many flu shots were actually delivered there, estimating the total at 300 – or about 18 per cent of 1,645 inmates. For its systemwide inmate population of about 14,550, ODOC purchased enough flu vaccine for just 4,650 inmates, estimating it administered all but about 100 units, meaning it vaccinated less than a third of inmates. Public health experts call both rates too low to be effective prevention efforts, especially for an easily spread virus in confined areas.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
According to federal health officials, the recent flu season is proving to be the worst since 2009’s devastating H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)estimate the current flu season, with its dominant H3N2 strain, will be at least as bad as what they term the “moderately severe” 2014-15 flu season, when 34 million people in this country were sickened, over 700,000 were hospitalized, and about 56,000 died from effects of the flu.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), since at least November 2013, has issued clinical practice guidelinesfor federal prisons on how to prevent and deal with flu seasons. The BOP guidelines call vaccination “the most critical measure” for preventing seasonal flu, noting CDC’s recommendation everyone over the age of six months get vaccinated against flu. The guidelines also call for federal prisons to offer flu vaccination to all inmates and staff, and ensure all inmates are informed, through the facility’s handbook, flyers and electronic announcements, that flu shots are available and when they can be obtained.
Those guidelines only cover federal prisons, however, so state and local prisons and jails must adopt and carry out their own policies. The survivors of a female inmate at Coffee Creek Correctional Institution in Wilsonville, Oregon are going to court, claiming 53-year-old Tina Ferri died there in January because in her first few months at the prison, she did not receive a flu vaccination, and after contracting influenza, did not get timely medical treatment. Her family claims Ferri, one of 44 inmates at the facility sickened by flu, had severe but untreated flu (reportedly coughing up blood), which led to pneumonia in both lungs, from which a staph infection resulted, ultimately causing multiple organ failure.
Oregon’s main health agency echoes CDC’s advice that everyone older than six months should get vaccinated for influenza. The Oregon Department of Corrections(ODOC), however, despite claiming it recommends all inmates receive flu vaccinations, could not document how it provides that advice; one agency spokesperson said there was no written policy on the issue. No announcement of the availability or advisability of flu shots was published in the facility’s monthly newsletter, and other inmates and ODOC records say any notification was limited to relatively few inmates with conditions (such as advanced age or other medical conditions), making them especially vulnerable to a flu infection.
Purchasing records also show that state’s lackadaisical approach to giving flu shots. ODOC gave conflicting figures on how many flu shots it ordered, at about $7 apiece, for its Coffee Creek prison (saying at one time 519 and at another 700). It also claimed not to be able easily to retrieve records of how many flu shots were actually delivered there, estimating the total at 300 – or about 18 per cent of 1,645 inmates. For its systemwide inmate population of about 14,550, ODOC purchased enough flu vaccine for just 4,650 inmates, estimating it administered all but about 100 units, meaning it vaccinated less than a third of inmates. Public health experts call both rates too low to be effective prevention efforts, especially for an easily spread virus in confined areas.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
March 28, 2018
Should Prisoners Be Eligible for the Pell Grant?
By Christopher Zoukis
The connection between education and the likelihood of prisoners returning to prison upon release is clear. According to various studies, prisoners who become educated stay crime-free in the community longer than those who don’t, and the higher the education received, the less the chance of recidivism.
However, there is one major issue that prevents prisoners from getting an education – money. Whether you are behind bars or in society, education cost money – and for approximately eight out of 10 Americans, money is in short supply. One of the reasons is student loan debt.
More than 44 million Americans owe over $1 trillion in student loan debt. This amount of student debt is approximately $620 billion more than Americans’ entire credit card debt. The average student debt load per graduate is $37,172.
Debt can quickly create a downward spiral of not having enough cash for basic necessities, leading to relying on more debt to make ends meet. This is a damaging start for many graduates.
This is where the Pell Grant comes in.
Federal Pell Grants are awarded to undergraduates who have not yet earned a degree. As the program is a grant and not a loan, it does not need to be repaid as long as the recipient adheres to the rules of the grant. The amount for which a student is eligible varies, and the maximum allowable limit changes each year. For 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, the grant was $5,920. However, the amount awarded could be less or more depending on the student’s needs. Under some circumstances, students receive 150 per cent of the maximum to help with summer semester classes.
Receiving thousands of dollars in educational funds is a winning situation for everybody. The student has access to life-changing skills, can go on to innovate and create more jobs in the workforce, and to live with significantly less debt. Education changes lives! Well, unless you are in prison.
Currently, prisoners are not eligible for the Pell Grant, and once again, this brings up the age-old argument of if the prison system should be based in punishment or rehabilitation.
Preparing offenders to function in society upon release is a part of the prison system’s mandate, but restricting prisoner access to the Pell Grant contravenes that very mandate. The Pell Grant is designed to give low-income and disadvantaged students a shot at a better life through education – a life that can contribute to society in positive ways.
In February, education leaders in the Senate met to discuss reinstating the Pell Grant for students in prison.
Senator Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, supports the idea. “Most prisoners, sooner or later, are released from prison, and no one is helped when they do not have the skills to find a job. Making Pell grants available to them in the right circumstances is a good idea,” says Alexander.
To date, a decision on the issue has not been reached and prisoners still do not have access to the Pell Grant. There is comfort in knowing, however, that powerful people are lobbying to make equal access to education a reality for all, and when that happens, the prison system will be much closer to functioning as a the rehabilitation centre it is meant to be.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
The connection between education and the likelihood of prisoners returning to prison upon release is clear. According to various studies, prisoners who become educated stay crime-free in the community longer than those who don’t, and the higher the education received, the less the chance of recidivism.
However, there is one major issue that prevents prisoners from getting an education – money. Whether you are behind bars or in society, education cost money – and for approximately eight out of 10 Americans, money is in short supply. One of the reasons is student loan debt.
More than 44 million Americans owe over $1 trillion in student loan debt. This amount of student debt is approximately $620 billion more than Americans’ entire credit card debt. The average student debt load per graduate is $37,172.
Debt can quickly create a downward spiral of not having enough cash for basic necessities, leading to relying on more debt to make ends meet. This is a damaging start for many graduates.
This is where the Pell Grant comes in.
Federal Pell Grants are awarded to undergraduates who have not yet earned a degree. As the program is a grant and not a loan, it does not need to be repaid as long as the recipient adheres to the rules of the grant. The amount for which a student is eligible varies, and the maximum allowable limit changes each year. For 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, the grant was $5,920. However, the amount awarded could be less or more depending on the student’s needs. Under some circumstances, students receive 150 per cent of the maximum to help with summer semester classes.
Receiving thousands of dollars in educational funds is a winning situation for everybody. The student has access to life-changing skills, can go on to innovate and create more jobs in the workforce, and to live with significantly less debt. Education changes lives! Well, unless you are in prison.
Currently, prisoners are not eligible for the Pell Grant, and once again, this brings up the age-old argument of if the prison system should be based in punishment or rehabilitation.
Preparing offenders to function in society upon release is a part of the prison system’s mandate, but restricting prisoner access to the Pell Grant contravenes that very mandate. The Pell Grant is designed to give low-income and disadvantaged students a shot at a better life through education – a life that can contribute to society in positive ways.
In February, education leaders in the Senate met to discuss reinstating the Pell Grant for students in prison.
Senator Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, supports the idea. “Most prisoners, sooner or later, are released from prison, and no one is helped when they do not have the skills to find a job. Making Pell grants available to them in the right circumstances is a good idea,” says Alexander.
To date, a decision on the issue has not been reached and prisoners still do not have access to the Pell Grant. There is comfort in knowing, however, that powerful people are lobbying to make equal access to education a reality for all, and when that happens, the prison system will be much closer to functioning as a the rehabilitation centre it is meant to be.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.
March 13, 2018
“Federal Prison Handbook” made the SHORTLIST
“Federal Prison Handbook” made the SHORTLIST for the Instructional & Insightful Non-Fiction Book Awards, a division of the Chanticleer International Book Awards!
Learn more--> https://www.chantireviews.com/2018/03...
Learn more--> https://www.chantireviews.com/2018/03...
March 2, 2018
Incarceration of Women on the Rise Worldwide
By Christopher Zoukis
Women have had a long, hard fight toward equality.
From the power suits of the `80s to the glass ceilings of the `90s, demand for pay equality and making inroads in typically male-dominated fields, and now breaking down more barriers with this era’s powerful #metoo movement, slowly but surely the women are catching up to men on a number of fronts. But there’s one concerning area where women are catching up to men.
Researchers at the Birkbeck University’s Institute for Criminal Policy Research recently indicated in its Worldwide Prison Report that since 2000, the incarceration rate for women and girls has jumped up by a whopping 53 percent. And this is not an isolated trend. A near-uniform rise in female prison populations has been observed in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Why is this happening?
So far, it would appear that the more access women have to opportunities to better themselves, the more risk they have of being arrested. However, those opportunities for betterment and for offending differ depending on the region.
In developing countries, many women and girls survive by turning to prostitution, which can lead to being arrested.
For example, globalization in Africa sees young women migrating from rural to urban centers for work. However, the pressure to provide for their families, even when far away, does not decrease. In the United States, where 212,000 females are incarcerated, there is a direct link between female incarceration rates and segregation, poverty, mental health issues and abuse.
And problems with the law don’t stop once a woman is released from prison. If she is a mother or has to care for other family members, the pressure for her to quickly earn income is immense. And with an overburdened prison system, education behind bars and access to skills programming for former inmates to help them earn a living are often compromised.
The uptick in female incarceration is strongly suggested to be tied to more access to jobs in some areas, or the dire need for finanical support in others — while having no respite from the burden of child and family care. Basically, despite the progress women are making around the world in pay, gender, and workplace equality, support on the homefront is still severely lacking.
What is an overworked, overstressed, overburdened woman to do when she needs to feed her family and care for her children, but lacks the skills and finances to adequately do so? Steal. Prostitute. Commit fraud. And a ripple effect follows. Since women are vital to the support of the family physically, financially and emotionally, when they are incarcerated the family suffers too. This leads to a vicious cycle of more crime and poverty.
While the jump in female prison populations is truly disturbing, it stems from actual progress of equality. It’s a terrible side effect, but with the knowledge that it’s happening and why, society can move to action. Rather than incarcerate, why not address the root issues of crime, funnelling offenders toward the appropriate social services for domestic violence, employment initiatives, food safety, childcare and other poverty-reduction initiatives.
The care of a family should not be a solo venture that falls on one woman’s shoulders. In the best of circumstances, it should be shared among immediate and extended family and the greater community. If the burden were lightened and shared, the result might be that we’d see less women – and men – behind bars.
This article first appeared on Blogcritics.com.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014) and Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016). He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonLawBlog.com.
Women have had a long, hard fight toward equality.
From the power suits of the `80s to the glass ceilings of the `90s, demand for pay equality and making inroads in typically male-dominated fields, and now breaking down more barriers with this era’s powerful #metoo movement, slowly but surely the women are catching up to men on a number of fronts. But there’s one concerning area where women are catching up to men.
Researchers at the Birkbeck University’s Institute for Criminal Policy Research recently indicated in its Worldwide Prison Report that since 2000, the incarceration rate for women and girls has jumped up by a whopping 53 percent. And this is not an isolated trend. A near-uniform rise in female prison populations has been observed in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Why is this happening?
So far, it would appear that the more access women have to opportunities to better themselves, the more risk they have of being arrested. However, those opportunities for betterment and for offending differ depending on the region.
In developing countries, many women and girls survive by turning to prostitution, which can lead to being arrested.
For example, globalization in Africa sees young women migrating from rural to urban centers for work. However, the pressure to provide for their families, even when far away, does not decrease. In the United States, where 212,000 females are incarcerated, there is a direct link between female incarceration rates and segregation, poverty, mental health issues and abuse.
And problems with the law don’t stop once a woman is released from prison. If she is a mother or has to care for other family members, the pressure for her to quickly earn income is immense. And with an overburdened prison system, education behind bars and access to skills programming for former inmates to help them earn a living are often compromised.
The uptick in female incarceration is strongly suggested to be tied to more access to jobs in some areas, or the dire need for finanical support in others — while having no respite from the burden of child and family care. Basically, despite the progress women are making around the world in pay, gender, and workplace equality, support on the homefront is still severely lacking.
What is an overworked, overstressed, overburdened woman to do when she needs to feed her family and care for her children, but lacks the skills and finances to adequately do so? Steal. Prostitute. Commit fraud. And a ripple effect follows. Since women are vital to the support of the family physically, financially and emotionally, when they are incarcerated the family suffers too. This leads to a vicious cycle of more crime and poverty.
While the jump in female prison populations is truly disturbing, it stems from actual progress of equality. It’s a terrible side effect, but with the knowledge that it’s happening and why, society can move to action. Rather than incarcerate, why not address the root issues of crime, funnelling offenders toward the appropriate social services for domestic violence, employment initiatives, food safety, childcare and other poverty-reduction initiatives.
The care of a family should not be a solo venture that falls on one woman’s shoulders. In the best of circumstances, it should be shared among immediate and extended family and the greater community. If the burden were lightened and shared, the result might be that we’d see less women – and men – behind bars.
This article first appeared on Blogcritics.com.
Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014) and Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016). He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonLawBlog.com.
February 22, 2018
Panel Clears Sentencing Reform Bill Despite Opposition
By Christopher Zoukis
Although Attorney-General Jeff Session warned a day earlier that passing the measure would be a grave error that risked putting the very worst criminals back into our communities, on Feb. 15 Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) pushed a sentencing reform bill (S. 1917) through his panel without amendment, on a 16-5 vote.
Grassley introduced the bill in October along with the Senate Democratic whip, Richard Durbin (D-IL). The bill now has a bipartisan group of 20 additional co-sponsors. All 10 Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the bill, along with six of its 11 Republicans.
The “Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017” would trim federal mandatory minimum sentence guidelines for repeat drug offenders who don’t have a record of serious violent offenses, and widen several exceptions to mandatory minimum sentencing. At the same time, the bill would impose new mandatory minimum sentences for providing support for terrorism, interstate domestic abuse that causes death, and selling fentanyl-laced drugs.
The measure would allow approximately 3,100 federal inmates still incarcerated under a since-repealed law providing far heavier penalties for crack cocaine than for the powdered drug to petition for sentence reductions; the 2010 law reducing that disparity did so only prospectively.
This year, on the day before the committee was to mark up the bill, Sessions wrote committee leaders to voice his objections. Complaining that courts and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have in recent years given significant sentencing breaks to convicted drug traffickers and other violent criminals, Sessions wrote, the bill, by further reducing drug traffickers’ sentences “in the midst of the worst drug crisis” in the nation’s history, “would make it more difficult to achieve our goals and have potentially dire consequences.”
A clearly exasperated Grassley took sharp issue with the Attorney General’s claim the bill would reduce sentences for a highly dangerous cohort of criminals. Instead, the chairman protested, his bill optimizes the criminal justice system by revising mandatory minimum sentences to focus only on the most dangerous and violent criminals.
Citing polls showing that large majorities favor shifting spending priorities away from prisons and toward law enforcement, rehabilitation, anti-recidivism efforts and victim services, Grassley stressed his bill would condition any sentence reductions on judges first reviewing an applicant’s case, examining criminal history, their conduct while incarcerated, and the successful completion of recidivism prevention programs.
The committee-passed bill will give the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) three years to expand its residential drug abuse education program so that all eligible inmates could participate, and will require BOP to develop and regularly use a tool to assess inmates’ recidivism risk. The bill is identical to one that, after lengthy talks between two parties, cleared the panel in 2015. Despite significant support from both conservative and liberal groups, that bill never came to a vote on the Senate floor, most likely due to reluctance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring a potentially controversial measure to a vote shortly before the 2016 elections.
While the Trump administration hasn’t yet issued a formal statement of opposition, Sessions’ public statement raises questions on whether Republican legislative leaders will be willing to take up the measure. Thus far, the House of Representatives does not have its own version of the Senate committee-passed bill.
Christopher Zoukis, the author of the Federal Prison Handbook (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016), and College for Convicts (McFarland & Co., 2014), is a contributing writer to Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News, Criminal Legal News, and the New York Journal of Books. He can be found online at PrisonerResource.com.
Although Attorney-General Jeff Session warned a day earlier that passing the measure would be a grave error that risked putting the very worst criminals back into our communities, on Feb. 15 Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) pushed a sentencing reform bill (S. 1917) through his panel without amendment, on a 16-5 vote.
Grassley introduced the bill in October along with the Senate Democratic whip, Richard Durbin (D-IL). The bill now has a bipartisan group of 20 additional co-sponsors. All 10 Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the bill, along with six of its 11 Republicans.
The “Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017” would trim federal mandatory minimum sentence guidelines for repeat drug offenders who don’t have a record of serious violent offenses, and widen several exceptions to mandatory minimum sentencing. At the same time, the bill would impose new mandatory minimum sentences for providing support for terrorism, interstate domestic abuse that causes death, and selling fentanyl-laced drugs.
The measure would allow approximately 3,100 federal inmates still incarcerated under a since-repealed law providing far heavier penalties for crack cocaine than for the powdered drug to petition for sentence reductions; the 2010 law reducing that disparity did so only prospectively.
This year, on the day before the committee was to mark up the bill, Sessions wrote committee leaders to voice his objections. Complaining that courts and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have in recent years given significant sentencing breaks to convicted drug traffickers and other violent criminals, Sessions wrote, the bill, by further reducing drug traffickers’ sentences “in the midst of the worst drug crisis” in the nation’s history, “would make it more difficult to achieve our goals and have potentially dire consequences.”
A clearly exasperated Grassley took sharp issue with the Attorney General’s claim the bill would reduce sentences for a highly dangerous cohort of criminals. Instead, the chairman protested, his bill optimizes the criminal justice system by revising mandatory minimum sentences to focus only on the most dangerous and violent criminals.
Citing polls showing that large majorities favor shifting spending priorities away from prisons and toward law enforcement, rehabilitation, anti-recidivism efforts and victim services, Grassley stressed his bill would condition any sentence reductions on judges first reviewing an applicant’s case, examining criminal history, their conduct while incarcerated, and the successful completion of recidivism prevention programs.
The committee-passed bill will give the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) three years to expand its residential drug abuse education program so that all eligible inmates could participate, and will require BOP to develop and regularly use a tool to assess inmates’ recidivism risk. The bill is identical to one that, after lengthy talks between two parties, cleared the panel in 2015. Despite significant support from both conservative and liberal groups, that bill never came to a vote on the Senate floor, most likely due to reluctance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring a potentially controversial measure to a vote shortly before the 2016 elections.
While the Trump administration hasn’t yet issued a formal statement of opposition, Sessions’ public statement raises questions on whether Republican legislative leaders will be willing to take up the measure. Thus far, the House of Representatives does not have its own version of the Senate committee-passed bill.
Christopher Zoukis, the author of the Federal Prison Handbook (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016), and College for Convicts (McFarland & Co., 2014), is a contributing writer to Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News, Criminal Legal News, and the New York Journal of Books. He can be found online at PrisonerResource.com.
February 15, 2018
What Will Larry Nassar’s Life Be Like in Federal Prison?
By Christopher Zoukis
Now that all of Larry Nassar’s criminal cases have concluded, his life will transition from that of a jail detainee to that of a federal prisoner.
In total, he was sentenced to 60 years in federal prison for three federal child pornography offenses and 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison for a number of sexual assaults that spanned multiple different state criminal cases.
As a result of his plea agreement, he will start serving his time in federal prison, where he will most likely spend the rest of his life. While Nassar, 54, was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison, it’s unlikely that he’ll live long enough to transition from federal prison to state prison, even though his sentences are running concurrently.
What Nassar’s life will be like in federal prison will depend greatly on the facility where he is incarcerated. The Federal Bureau of Prisons currently houses 183,587 federal prisoners in close to 200 federal prisons and prison camps. Approximately 14,500 inmates are currently incarcerated for federal sexual offenses, which typically include possession and production of child pornography, along with the solicitation of minors for sexual activity. While these prisoners are housed in prisons of every security level (other than minimum security federal prison camps), many are clustered in Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP) facilities, where they are more closely monitored for risk-relevant behaviors and offered both residential and non-residential sex offender treatment programs.
Currently, the following prisons are designated SOMP institutions:
-USP Tucson, Arizona (high security)
-USP Marion, Illinois (medium security)
-FCI Elkton, Ohio (medium security)
-FCI Englewood, Colorado (medium security)
-FCI Marianna, Florida (medium security)
-FCI Petersburg Medium, Virginia (medium security)
-FCI Seagoville, Texas (medium security)
-FMC Devens, Massachusetts (multiple security levels)
-FMC Carswell, Texas (multiple security levels)
Due to Nassar’s lengthy sentence, he’ll most likely be housed at one of the Bureau’s high security level prisons, which are also known as United States Penitentiaries or USPs. His sentence of over 30 years activates a Bureau-issued Public Safety Factor (PSF) of “Sentence Length,” which will restrict Nassar to a high security federal prison unless the PSF is waived. This is unlikely due to his very lengthy state and federal sentences.
Of all high security federal prisons, only USP Tucson in Arizona is a SOMP institution. This is probably the only high security federal prison where Nassar could relatively safely remain in the general population. If he was placed at any other penitentiary, he would likely be assaulted or not allowed out of solitary confinement, where the Bureau keeps those in protective custody.
Most inmates — even those convicted of notorious sexual offenses— are not housed in protective custody for long. It is common for those convicted of heinous and notorious sexual offenses who are not designated to USP Tucson to be bounced around from penitentiary to penitentiary, each time either being seriously assaulted in general population or in the hole. Otherwise, such inmates remain in protective custody unscathed, but completely isolated for months or years on end until the Bureau places them at a facility where they can survive.
Prison violence is a problem for any inmate, but especially for those convicted of sexual offenses. Informants and sex offenders tend to be the bottom of the barrel in prison culture. What is often found is that the level of violence matches the security level. In regular penitentiaries, violence is common and brutal. The convict culture is real and permeates every aspect of life in prison. In fact, most prisoners must join prison gangs or risk constant attack. But at minimum-security federal prison camps, violence is almost unheard of and most people are just biding their time until they go home. Medium and low security federal prisons tend to be a mix. Nassar is likely to be subject to violence if housed in a regular federal prison, but if he is placed in a SOMP institution, he will generally be safe outside of perhaps some nasty words or other forms of ostracizing from non-sex offender inmates. For example, he will most likely be excluded from certain sports and only allowed to sit at certain tables in the chow hall. It will probably be uncomfortable for a period, but not necessarily dangerous.
Due to Nassar’s visibility, the Bureau will likely designate him to USP Tucson, where he should be able to walk the yard with the approximately 40 percent of the population that is incarcerated for current or past sexual offenses. There, he will have access to the same services available to other inmates in general population. This will include limited educational classes such as Adult Continuing Education, library services, sex offender treatment, recreational opportunities such as individual and group sports and physical fitness, and access to some communication systems to contact family, like monitored telephone, email and letters. He will also be allowed contact visits with family and friends.
While Nassar will have a target on his back due to the notoriety of his offenses and the extensive media coverage, he should be relatively safe at USP Tucson or, if his Public Safety Factor is waived and he is housed at a medium security federal prison, a SOMP medium. At USP Tucson, there are many other sex offenders who have been sentenced to even more time than Nassar, and who have committed far worse crimes than he has — as surprising as that might sound. As such, he will likely fall into a routine which will eventually become his new life. He’ll wake up, clean his cell, go to chow, work in some form of menial prison employment, and generally find ways to pass his time. In prison, who he was will die, and something new will emerge. This occurs with virtually every long-term inmate. The question is, when he sheds the skin of the person he has been, will he find ways to fix what ails him, or will he spiral down into something even deeper and darker? This is a deeply personal question that many prisoners must answer. Even in prison there is further to fall, but there is also a ladder to start the climb.
Christopher Zoukis, the author of the Federal Prison Handbook (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016), and College for Convicts (McFarland & Co., 2014), is a contributing writer to Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News, Criminal Legal News, and the New York Journal of Books. He can be found online at PrisonerResource.com.
Now that all of Larry Nassar’s criminal cases have concluded, his life will transition from that of a jail detainee to that of a federal prisoner.
In total, he was sentenced to 60 years in federal prison for three federal child pornography offenses and 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison for a number of sexual assaults that spanned multiple different state criminal cases.
As a result of his plea agreement, he will start serving his time in federal prison, where he will most likely spend the rest of his life. While Nassar, 54, was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison, it’s unlikely that he’ll live long enough to transition from federal prison to state prison, even though his sentences are running concurrently.
What Nassar’s life will be like in federal prison will depend greatly on the facility where he is incarcerated. The Federal Bureau of Prisons currently houses 183,587 federal prisoners in close to 200 federal prisons and prison camps. Approximately 14,500 inmates are currently incarcerated for federal sexual offenses, which typically include possession and production of child pornography, along with the solicitation of minors for sexual activity. While these prisoners are housed in prisons of every security level (other than minimum security federal prison camps), many are clustered in Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP) facilities, where they are more closely monitored for risk-relevant behaviors and offered both residential and non-residential sex offender treatment programs.
Currently, the following prisons are designated SOMP institutions:
-USP Tucson, Arizona (high security)
-USP Marion, Illinois (medium security)
-FCI Elkton, Ohio (medium security)
-FCI Englewood, Colorado (medium security)
-FCI Marianna, Florida (medium security)
-FCI Petersburg Medium, Virginia (medium security)
-FCI Seagoville, Texas (medium security)
-FMC Devens, Massachusetts (multiple security levels)
-FMC Carswell, Texas (multiple security levels)
Due to Nassar’s lengthy sentence, he’ll most likely be housed at one of the Bureau’s high security level prisons, which are also known as United States Penitentiaries or USPs. His sentence of over 30 years activates a Bureau-issued Public Safety Factor (PSF) of “Sentence Length,” which will restrict Nassar to a high security federal prison unless the PSF is waived. This is unlikely due to his very lengthy state and federal sentences.
Of all high security federal prisons, only USP Tucson in Arizona is a SOMP institution. This is probably the only high security federal prison where Nassar could relatively safely remain in the general population. If he was placed at any other penitentiary, he would likely be assaulted or not allowed out of solitary confinement, where the Bureau keeps those in protective custody.
Most inmates — even those convicted of notorious sexual offenses— are not housed in protective custody for long. It is common for those convicted of heinous and notorious sexual offenses who are not designated to USP Tucson to be bounced around from penitentiary to penitentiary, each time either being seriously assaulted in general population or in the hole. Otherwise, such inmates remain in protective custody unscathed, but completely isolated for months or years on end until the Bureau places them at a facility where they can survive.
Prison violence is a problem for any inmate, but especially for those convicted of sexual offenses. Informants and sex offenders tend to be the bottom of the barrel in prison culture. What is often found is that the level of violence matches the security level. In regular penitentiaries, violence is common and brutal. The convict culture is real and permeates every aspect of life in prison. In fact, most prisoners must join prison gangs or risk constant attack. But at minimum-security federal prison camps, violence is almost unheard of and most people are just biding their time until they go home. Medium and low security federal prisons tend to be a mix. Nassar is likely to be subject to violence if housed in a regular federal prison, but if he is placed in a SOMP institution, he will generally be safe outside of perhaps some nasty words or other forms of ostracizing from non-sex offender inmates. For example, he will most likely be excluded from certain sports and only allowed to sit at certain tables in the chow hall. It will probably be uncomfortable for a period, but not necessarily dangerous.
Due to Nassar’s visibility, the Bureau will likely designate him to USP Tucson, where he should be able to walk the yard with the approximately 40 percent of the population that is incarcerated for current or past sexual offenses. There, he will have access to the same services available to other inmates in general population. This will include limited educational classes such as Adult Continuing Education, library services, sex offender treatment, recreational opportunities such as individual and group sports and physical fitness, and access to some communication systems to contact family, like monitored telephone, email and letters. He will also be allowed contact visits with family and friends.
While Nassar will have a target on his back due to the notoriety of his offenses and the extensive media coverage, he should be relatively safe at USP Tucson or, if his Public Safety Factor is waived and he is housed at a medium security federal prison, a SOMP medium. At USP Tucson, there are many other sex offenders who have been sentenced to even more time than Nassar, and who have committed far worse crimes than he has — as surprising as that might sound. As such, he will likely fall into a routine which will eventually become his new life. He’ll wake up, clean his cell, go to chow, work in some form of menial prison employment, and generally find ways to pass his time. In prison, who he was will die, and something new will emerge. This occurs with virtually every long-term inmate. The question is, when he sheds the skin of the person he has been, will he find ways to fix what ails him, or will he spiral down into something even deeper and darker? This is a deeply personal question that many prisoners must answer. Even in prison there is further to fall, but there is also a ladder to start the climb.
Christopher Zoukis, the author of the Federal Prison Handbook (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), Prison Education Guide (Prison Legal News Publishing, 2016), and College for Convicts (McFarland & Co., 2014), is a contributing writer to Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News, Criminal Legal News, and the New York Journal of Books. He can be found online at PrisonerResource.com.
February 6, 2018
BOP Relents on Forcing Chaplains to Carry Pepper Spray
By Christopher Zoukis
In mid-October we reported on a federal prison chaplain who was being denied direct contact with inmates because for religious reasons he refused to carry pepper spray when meeting them.
For a decade, the Rev. Ronald Apollo had been employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and was head chaplain at a medium-security prison in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He had served even longer as a U.S. Air Force chaplain.
He belongs to a Pentecostal denomination which directs its members to shun “weapons of human strife.” In all Rev. Apollo’s time as a military or prison chaplain, he had never been required to carry a weapon or wear protective equipment. During his service as a military combat zone chaplain, he was forbidden to bear arms. Similarly, BOP’s manual does not require prison chaplains to receive weapons training.
But in February 2013, Eric Williams, a young correctional officer in the high-security federal prison in Pennsylvania, was killed by an inmate wielding a homemade shank. The attack came during nightly lockdown where Williams was the only corrections officer in a unit housing 130 inmates. Williams was equipped only with keys, handcuffs and a radio.
At that time, BOP didn’t routinely equip federal corrections officers with aerosol canisters of oleoresin capsicum “pepper spray,” although it had a pilot program providing correctional officers pepper spray as non-lethal defensive equipment in seven of its 65 medium or high-security prisons. Three days after Williams’s murder, the pilot program expanded to all 17 federal high-security prisons; BOP later began issuing pepper spray to all corrections officers who encounter inmates at medium or high-security prisons.
Congress unanimously passed the “Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act,” and President Obama signed it in March 2016. It authorizes BOP to issue pepper spray in medium and high-security prisons, to correctional officers and other people it chooses, requires them to be trained in its use, and calls for BOP to report on how effective and expensive the policy has been, and assess whether it should be expanded into lower-security settings.
Even though the law said nothing about chaplains, BOP’s policy appeared to change. An agency spokesman said all chaplains must carry pepper spray, and some were denied access to prisons or faced other repercussions for refusing. Until very recently, Rev. Apollo was not allowed to meet with inmates due to his refusal to carry pepper spray. He says it not only violates his religious beliefs, but also makes inmates view chaplains as part of prison security, not spiritual advisers. Rev. Apollo said a BOP newsletter shortly before the bill’s passage said chaplains would be exempt, echoed in a March 2016 agency memo. But by June, he was having problems with managers at his prison and in BOP. Despite appeals to both levels, he was told he could no longer meet with inmates unless he carried pepper spray.
But after Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group for conservative Christians, summoned its lawyers to represent Rev. Apollo and other chaplains with similar problems, they pointed out that several federal laws, notably the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), set very high standards for federal policies hampering religious practices. Soon it was announced BOP had found an “accommodation” that would not require chaplains to carry pepper spray.
Christopher Zoukis is an outspoken prisoner rights and correctional education advocate who is incarcerated at FCI Petersburg Medium in Virginia. He is an award-winning writer whose work has been published widely in major publications such as The Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News and various other print and online publications. Learn more about Christopher Zoukis at christopherzoukis.com and prisoneducation.com.
In mid-October we reported on a federal prison chaplain who was being denied direct contact with inmates because for religious reasons he refused to carry pepper spray when meeting them.
For a decade, the Rev. Ronald Apollo had been employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and was head chaplain at a medium-security prison in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He had served even longer as a U.S. Air Force chaplain.
He belongs to a Pentecostal denomination which directs its members to shun “weapons of human strife.” In all Rev. Apollo’s time as a military or prison chaplain, he had never been required to carry a weapon or wear protective equipment. During his service as a military combat zone chaplain, he was forbidden to bear arms. Similarly, BOP’s manual does not require prison chaplains to receive weapons training.
But in February 2013, Eric Williams, a young correctional officer in the high-security federal prison in Pennsylvania, was killed by an inmate wielding a homemade shank. The attack came during nightly lockdown where Williams was the only corrections officer in a unit housing 130 inmates. Williams was equipped only with keys, handcuffs and a radio.
At that time, BOP didn’t routinely equip federal corrections officers with aerosol canisters of oleoresin capsicum “pepper spray,” although it had a pilot program providing correctional officers pepper spray as non-lethal defensive equipment in seven of its 65 medium or high-security prisons. Three days after Williams’s murder, the pilot program expanded to all 17 federal high-security prisons; BOP later began issuing pepper spray to all corrections officers who encounter inmates at medium or high-security prisons.
Congress unanimously passed the “Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act,” and President Obama signed it in March 2016. It authorizes BOP to issue pepper spray in medium and high-security prisons, to correctional officers and other people it chooses, requires them to be trained in its use, and calls for BOP to report on how effective and expensive the policy has been, and assess whether it should be expanded into lower-security settings.
Even though the law said nothing about chaplains, BOP’s policy appeared to change. An agency spokesman said all chaplains must carry pepper spray, and some were denied access to prisons or faced other repercussions for refusing. Until very recently, Rev. Apollo was not allowed to meet with inmates due to his refusal to carry pepper spray. He says it not only violates his religious beliefs, but also makes inmates view chaplains as part of prison security, not spiritual advisers. Rev. Apollo said a BOP newsletter shortly before the bill’s passage said chaplains would be exempt, echoed in a March 2016 agency memo. But by June, he was having problems with managers at his prison and in BOP. Despite appeals to both levels, he was told he could no longer meet with inmates unless he carried pepper spray.
But after Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group for conservative Christians, summoned its lawyers to represent Rev. Apollo and other chaplains with similar problems, they pointed out that several federal laws, notably the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), set very high standards for federal policies hampering religious practices. Soon it was announced BOP had found an “accommodation” that would not require chaplains to carry pepper spray.
Christopher Zoukis is an outspoken prisoner rights and correctional education advocate who is incarcerated at FCI Petersburg Medium in Virginia. He is an award-winning writer whose work has been published widely in major publications such as The Huffington Post, Prison Legal News, New York Daily News and various other print and online publications. Learn more about Christopher Zoukis at christopherzoukis.com and prisoneducation.com.
