HomePostTopic: God

God

CHRIS GLINSKI:
Overcoming Barriers Of Addiction

Chris Glinski was addicted to heroin He has aspirations to be a therapist and was recently married in 2016. “Where I am at now, it feels so foreign that I had this debilitating addiction that prevented me from love and joy,” Chris said. Chris’ story is an example of overcoming barriers and beating addiction.

 

Chris lived in Chicago for the first six years of his life. Both of his parents were young when they got married. By the time Chris’ mom was 20 and his dad was 21, they already had three kids. “They did the best they could,” Chris recalls. His dad was often away working while his mom was busy running a daycare in their home. At one point she was babysitting 15 different children. This caused Chris to get little attention. So, in order to find the attention he needed as a kid, he started turning to his friends. “I found family, outside of my [blood-related] family, through my friends,” he remembered. 

 

The Beginning

Chris’ journey to addiction started with general curiosity. He and his friend would start drinking together for fun. However, Chris eventually came to the realization that he had the ability to control his moods with substances. He began to like the feeling that weed and alcohol provided to him. “I liked this feeling a lot more than being sober,” Chris admitted. By the time Chris was 14, he was “smoking weed, popping pills, and coasting through life.”

“I was always ashamed because I felt like I was this unlovable creature.”

Chris recalls being an aggressive kid growing up. He would fight other kids in his school based off of his unresolved anger towards life. He recalls that it was “lucky that he finished high school.” After he finished his high school education, he attempted one semester at college only to flunk out. He would pick up jobs as a waiter and whatever else he could find to stay afloat and pay for his addiction. Chris said that he, “…eventually started having legal issues. I got arrested for felony and burglary.” The path that he was on was not sustainable.

 

The Depths of Addiction

The prescription pills that Chris was hooked on were starting to become harder and more expensive to get due to increased regulation. With Chris heavily hooked on hard drugs, the only “natural move for an addict” was to turn to heroin. “Luckily I was a terrible drug addict. I got arrested a lot. That was what saved my life,” Chris recalls. He stated how he was going down a path of destruction and his only options were prison or death. In November of 2013, Chris went to jail for possession of heroin. This was his second felony and this was also after several misdemeanors. Chris’ road to recovery started at this event.

“I felt like I had hope now.”

The Journey to Recovery

After a month in jail, Chris was given the option for drug court. Knowing that this avenue was not a sustainable way to recover from addiction and that it would only lead him to use heroin again, he refused. Chris wanted to be granted another opportunity. “I was hoping to go to No Longer Bound.” He had a friend who went to the No Longer Bound program and was staffed there. The organization “enrolls men in a 12-month residential regeneration process to rescue addicts, regenerate men, and rescue families.”

“By the grace of God, the judge gave me the sweetest deal…If I completed the No Longer Bound program, my record would be wiped clean. Also, anytime that I spent in college would count towards my community service hours. Finally, any dollars I spent towards college or treatment would be put towards my court fines. It was great,” Chris exclaimed. With that decision, Chris left jail for the last time and enrolled in the No Longer Bound program.

 

Hope for the Addict

Chris never before felt as good as he did then when he was at No Longer Bound. “I had an entire year to focus on myself and grow up. I was 21-years-old at the time,” Chris said. The program helped him work through a lot of the shame and regret that he had from his years as an addict. “I had this internal belief system that caused me to have low self-worth, the inability to cope in a positive way, and feeling like I was a failure,” he added. He was able to find joy and hope through his time at No Longer Bound. Chris spent that year in the program building up confidence in himself.  

“I want to make sure I am serving people in No Longer Bound, my community, and my family.”

Coming out on Top

After his year of treatment was finished, Chris enrolled in No Longer Bound’s after-care program as an intern. He spent that time helping out in their marketing needs and also helped with the groups that No Longer Bound’s counselors taught in the mornings. In 2015, he enrolled back in college and got his Bachelor in Human Services. He is now seeking his Master of Mental Health Counseling so that he can become a licensed therapist. “I didn’t realize how easy school was until I got off drugs,” Chris remarked. His life completely turned around and that is because of the work he did to overcome barriers in his life with the help of No Longer Bound. 

No Longer Bound’s mission is to rescue addicts, regenerate men, and reconcile families. Chris’ story is a perfect example of that mission being accomplished. The Georgia Center for Opportunity partners with No Longer Bound in the form of helping reconcile families. GCO’s Healthy Families Initiative provides classes and a curriculum to help the men in No Longer Bound to improve their relationships with others. “I’m not saying I owe anything to No Longer Bound, but that opportunity saved and changed my life,” Chris concludes.

Chain of people holding hands, paper cut-outs

Last summer, the Obama Administration proposed a rule adding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI—get used to the acronym) to the list of classes protected against discrimination by federal contractors. In so doing, it built upon other anti-discrimination executive orders issued by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. The difference between the Obama Administration’s rule and those promulgated by its predecessors is that the latter explicitly provided exemptions for religious employers, who were permitted to engage in mission-sensitive hiring even if they provided goods and services to the federal government. Under the old rules, a faith-based organization could hire co-religionists to work, for example, in a federally-funded Welfare-to-Work program (and, of course, could quite rightly not discriminate in providing benefits to clients). Under the new rules, finalized in April, there is no exemption for faith-based organizations, many of whom would seem to have to abandon their historical commitments to sexual fidelity in the context of man-woman marriage if they wish to continue to be eligible for federal contracts.

And now the other (or another, perhaps the first of many) shoe is about to drop: there is word that the rule applied to federal contractors will soon be extended to grant recipients, at least in respect to one area of federal activity, humanitarian aid. As this move has not received a lot of attention (perhaps designedly so), it is not clear how far-reaching this change is. At the moment, it seems relatively safe to say that eligibility for some grants will likely be conditioned on a renunciation of traditional religious teaching (not just Christian, but also Jewish and Muslim) regarding human sexuality.

What prevents the Obama Administration from extending this requirement to additional categories of grant recipients is not at all clear. Or rather it is clear: only pushback from the friends of religious freedom will prevent the federal government from eventually conditioning all federal aid on “non-discrimination,” even at the expense of fidelity to traditional religious teaching.

How far could this eventually go? Consider, for example, the extraordinarily heavy dependence of most colleges and universities (there are a few noteworthy exceptions, among them Grove City, Hillsdale, and Wyoming Catholic) on federal aid. Suppose that colleges and universities that included behavioral expectations in their statements of faith were told that they could not hold their employees to these expectations, as doing so would constitute SOGI-based discrimination. Some might stand firm and join the proud ranks of the non-federally funded. Others, I fear, would feel compelled to assure their (merely) institutional survival by giving in. The result would likely be a much less genuinely diverse array of higher education options and a loss of a great intellectual and moral source of religious life in this country.

And that’s not the end of it. Don’t forget the brief exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the oral argument for the Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) case. Under questioning by Justice Alito, Verrilli conceded that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that did not recognize same-sex marriage could or would be an issue. For those who regard tax exempt status not as an acknowledgement of freedom from state interference but as an instrument of public policy, aimed at promoting the public good (as they conceive it), it’s only a few baby steps from denying government funding to revoking a tax exemption. I’d like to think that many of us will continue to give at the same level to the charities we favor regardless of whether we receive a tax break for doing so, but not all of us will. At the very least, roughly 30% of that charitable contribution would likely be taken by taxes, and that’s only from the contributor. Another chunk would be taken from the formerly tax-exempt institution. Is your favorite faith-based institution prepared to deal with the loss of a significant portion of its annual budget?

Some might argue that it’s healthy and bracing for faith-based institutions to get back to basics, to have a fresh and direct experience of what it means to be a pilgrim, sojourner, or (as Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas is fond of putting it) resident alien. Perhaps. Even more, it might be clarifying for the soulless Leviathan of the ever-expanding modern regulatory and administrative state that would reveal itself for the secularizing monster it really is. Perhaps.

But pardon me for continuing to harbor the hope that genuine religious pluralism that flourishes in a healthy civil society is good not only for the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, schools, colleges, universities, and charities that inhabit it, but also for the country that plays host to them.

That is what is threatened by the Obama Administration’s narrow and crabbed vision of, if not actual disrespect for, religious liberty. We face the prospect of a secular (which is not the same as neutral) state whose reach into our lives and communities is constantly expanding, not as a partner with distinctive and diverse local institutions and organizations, but as their master, dictating the terms on which they will serve the needs of those who use and depend upon them. The genuinely distinctive—religiously and morally traditional—institutions will be treated, not as partners, but as adversaries, at best pushed to the margins, at worst run out of business.

I hope and expect all institutions will love and serve all of God’s children, but will defend their right to do so in ways that are faithful to their understanding of Scripture.

Freedom of Worship - Norman Rockwell 2

I recently attended a conference that included a number of participants who have thought deeply about religious freedom and have acted effectively in its defense. Naturally, everyone was talking about the high-profile legislative battle in Indiana. That got me thinking about what might and should happen in Georgia, during next year’s legislative session, when protecting religious freedom will once again be on the table.

In the unlikely event that you’ve forgotten, here’s what a typical religious freedom bill—modeled on the 1993 federal legislation that Congress passed virtually unanimously—purports to do. In the first instance, it reestablishes a standard the Supreme Court employed to deal with a number of cases under the First Amendment: if a plaintiff can show that his or her religious freedom is substantially burdened by a generally applicable law, then the government has to demonstrate that the law is intended to carry out a compelling state interest and show that it is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Contrary to what its opponents claimed, the law does not give anyone a license to discriminate on the basis of religion; rather, it reinstates a time-honored judicial balancing test. Judges decide whether religious freedom—our “first freedom”—or the state interest prevails. No responsible advocate of religious freedom thinks that it ought to prevail against every possible countervailing claim, that every state interest ought to give way before it. We simply insist that religious freedom is an important consideration that ought to be taken into account.

The substance of the law

In the light of what happened in Indiana, Arkansas, and here in Georgia, it seems highly unlikely that any state legislature will pass a simple and straightforward version of the 1993 federal legislation. Opponents were all too effective in tying religious freedom to discrimination, even in the absence of any evidence that the federal law or its many state counterparts had ever effectively been used to license or justify discrimination. Unfortunately, the “fix” that lawmakers adopted to respond to these objections tends to sweep much too widely, making state and local anti-discrimination rules in effect trumps against any religious freedom claim. While certainly a permissible (if, I would argue, inadvisable) declaration of a compelling state interest, it appears to leave no room for certain sorts of religious freedom claims. Thus, for example, a church or other faith-based organization might wish to engage in mission-based hiring, employing only those willing to live up to certain creedal or behavioral standards. These religious hiring rights have long been acknowledged or accommodated in law, but could be described as “discrimination” by those unsympathetic to the standards or practices at issue. Without explicit provision for them in the law, these traditional religious hiring rights could be deprived any any sort of religious freedom defense.

Then there is, of course, the wedding industry, where some practitioners have absolutely no objection to serving gays in ordinary circumstances, but cannot in good conscience provide their services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. Their critics treat their services as public accommodations, akin to restaurants and hotels, and insist that there is absolutely no difference between the photographer who is happy to do a portrait of any individual or family, but not of any wedding ceremony, and the racist hotelier or restaurateur who refuses to serve African-Americans under any circumstances. In the first instance, this argument stretches the notion of public accommodation far beyond its traditional bounds. Furthermore, while the experience of African-Americans in the Jim Crow South certainly made it clear that the traditional right of a businessperson to serve whomever he or she pleases (an aspect of freedom of association) has to give way to the norm of non-discrimination in matters of race, it is far from clear that gays who seek wedding services are similarly seriously discommoded by the few bakers, photographers, or wedding planners who have religious scruples about same-sex marriage. Common sense tells you that there is a difference between being unable to find a place to stay or eat, or having to go around the corner or to the next town to find a wedding photographer. What’s more, many wedding-related businesses are, to say the least, “closely-held.” That means that exempting them from anti-discrimination laws in this limited instance—not, to repeat, in ordinary circumstances—rests on the solid constitutional ground of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case; the Court there held that family businesses, at least, enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment and the federal RFRA. Finally, at the very least both baking and photography can be treated as arts, hence as forms of expression. It has long been the understanding that the First Amendment prohibits government (or individuals using governmental authority) from compelling people to say what is not on their minds.

There is, in other words, a reasonably strong argument that the “fix” proposed in Georgia trenches on traditional freedoms of religion, association, and expression. While no one would argue that these freedoms are or should be absolute, they should not be casually or thoughtlessly trampled in an effort to conciliate the demands of one intense constituency. I leave it to the legislative drafters to find language that affirms both compelling norms—religious freedom and non-discrimination—and finds a way to combine them coherently. Surely we are not so unreasonable and inept that we cannot come up with language that accommodates religious liberty and assures gays and lesbians that they will neither be denied service in ordinary circumstances nor be too inconvenienced In their search for wedding services. (Indeed, there are “conscience clauses” from the medical field that may offer a good model here: those who have conscientious objections to, say, abortion, can be excused from participating in a medically necessary abortion, so long as someone else stands ready to help with the procedure.)

Making the case for a reasonable religious freedom law

This year, I think advocates of religious freedom legislation were taken somewhat by surprise by the scope and character of the opposition to them. Since religious freedom had almost always been an “apple pie” issue, they may have thought that, especially in a state that is generally both conservative and religious, opposition would be either nominal or relatively easily overcome. They didn’t reckon on the vociferousness of those who frequently misrepresented the proposal, on the almost complicitous supineness (or was it alacrity?) with which the media gave them a megaphone, and on the unwillingness of the business community to protect religious liberty, not to mention the enterprises and livelihoods of their much smaller brethren. Next year promises to be worse, not only because opponents of religious freedom legislation will be emboldened by their success this year, but because it is very likely that a narrowly-divided Supreme Court will hand down a decision finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, raising passions even higher.

Proponents of religious freedom can’t afford merely to be reactive. We have to start right away to lay the groundwork for success in next year’s legislative session. That means making a winsome case in public for the necessity of such legislation, not simply to protect those who conscientiously dissent from same-sex marriage, but also all those—especially members of minority religions—who in carrying out their religious duties find themselves on the wrong side of an otherwise neutral law. Those in the media who cover this issue must also be educated, again in a setting where the stakes are not high and they can feel free to ask questions and engage in the give-and-take of a conversation. That also means sitting down with legislators when things are relatively calm and patiently explaining the importance of religious freedom and the nuts and bolts of protecting it. Finally, that means putting business leaders on notice that if they criticize religious freedom legislation as unwelcoming in our state, they will be pointedly asked about the business they do in countries all over the world that do not respect human rights, let alone the rights of gays and lesbians.

Once the session begins, proponents of religious freedom legislation have to be prepared immediately to answer distortions of the bill’s provisions and purpose. They also have to be prepared to call out zealots on their side, demanding the same responsible behavior of their opponents.

I remain confident that a bill can and will pass, but it is unlikely to be a cakewalk. The arguments are on our side, but critics of the legislation command the high ground in the media.

The future of religious freedom

Abraham Lincoln once said, “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” Laws can be enacted, and then repealed. Even constitutional provisions can be repealed or reinterpreted. We cannot rest content that by the enactment of a law, we have genuinely and for the long term protected religious freedom.

More important than any law is “the culture,” by which I mean not only the arts, media, and education, but also the complex web of organizations and relationship that constitute “civil society” and the deeper sources in history and principle for public opinion. If these institutions, understandings, and “habits of the heart” do not support religious freedom, then no law purporting to protect it will stand for long.

Our long-term task is thus one of cultural restoration and reconstruction, in which politics plays only a small part. To be sure, laws and political controversies can offer so-called “teachable moments,” when lots of people are paying attention, but most of the teaching will be done in other, often more intimate and less fraught settings, like schools, churches, families, neighborhoods, and workplace relationships. And most of the teaching will not, strictly speaking, be about religious liberty.

Some have suggested that cultural and religious conservatives should be prepared for a “Benedict option,” a time of withdrawal from “the world” in order insularly to protect themselves, their families and communities, and their understanding from an inveterately hostile culture. I’m not yet prepared to urge my fellows down that path. I have more confidence that truth and nature will assert or reassert themselves. (I could make such an argument using the language of Christian theology, but would prefer in this venue not to talk about creation, evil, and God’s sovereignty.)

What we have to do is be attentive to building healthy families and communities, to be vigilant about telling the truth about ourselves and our relationships, to be open to respectful engagement with those who disagree with us, and to tell and promote stories in art, film, music, and literature that teach moral truths without being overtly “preachy.” Great art and great literature command the attention of those who encounter them. They nourish our minds and our souls. They provide the bases for fruitful conversations and friendships, even among those who happen at the moment to disagree.

This isn’t a “quick fix,” but rather the work of many lifetimes. We didn’t lose our way overnight. We won’t find our way back tomorrow.

 

Image Credit: https://humanitiesusa.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-the-saturday-evening-post-c-1943/

Prison, Barbed Wire

Jonathan O’Neill, a humble and soft-spoken man, is 46 years old and the father of fourteen children. He has been incarcerated since 2012 and currently resides at a transitional center where he works and takes various classes to prepare for his release that is set for Spring 2016. He is currently responsible for paying child support for seven of his children, which mostly consists of reimbursing the state for public assistance that was given to the children’s mothers. His other seven children are either grown or fully supported by their mothers.

When the time comes for Jonathan to be released, he will have as much as $45,000 in back child support, a suspended driver’s license, and the stigma of a criminal record. His story demonstrates how child support debt and its associated consequences can create significant barriers for people reentering society from prison.

The Debt Begins

Jonathan was just 19 years old when had his first run-in with the law. A joyride with a friend in a stolen car not only cost him his freedom, but also led his then girlfriend to seek Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to take care of their child. Like many incarcerated persons, Jonathan found out the hard way that he owed child support to the state as reimbursement for public assistance, and that his time behind bars did not delay responsibility to pay the state back. The 18-month prison sentence he received resulted in thousands of dollars in arrears accruing by the time he was released.

This debt made him angry and he refused to pay the state back for the public assistance given to his girlfriend.

Jonathan had his next two children with another woman. Though they lived together, this girlfriend also began receiving TANF apart from him knowing it. His child support arrears grew to $8,000 during this time because he was not paying the state for the public assistance it was providing for his children. Additionally, none of the money he spent to take care of his children while they lived together counted toward his growing child support debt because it was considered unofficial support since payments were not being made to the state as a reimbursement for public assistance. This led to a fall-out with his girlfriend and made him grow even more angry and rebellious toward the child support system over the next few years.

Jonathan explains, “I was mad at the mothers for doing this, so I neglected paying. I would take care of the children in my home, but I didn’t want to pay the state back. I had a rebellious spirit and felt like I was the father and I’m doing it how I want to.”

By the age of 27, Jonathan had five children from two mothers and over $14,000 in child support arrears. Having difficulty finding a job with his felony conviction, he began selling drugs to earn money. He was eventually caught with cocaine in 1999 and sentenced to 10 years on probation. Nine years later in 2008, he violated his conditions of probation by testing positive for marijuana, and he was sent to a Probation Detention Center (PDC) for 90 days.

A Turning Point

During his time in the PDC, Jonathan reflected upon the words a judge spoke to him in 2005: “You have so much in arrears, you will die owing the state money.” These words haunted him, and he wanted to make sure this did not prove true.

Upon release from the PDC in 2008, Jonathan became involved with a church that was located directly across the street from the PDC. It was through his involvement there that he experienced a spiritual transformation and became determined to earn an honest living. However, despite his earnest desire to find legitimate work, he struggled to find a job for eight months.

“I waited eight months and still I had no job. I got letters from the state threatening to lock me up for a whole year for non-payment of child support. I was tempted to sell drugs again. However, I chose to depend on God and He came through. I started painting at the church for no money. One day, God brought a man from the church who gave me a job at Food Lion because he was leaving.”

Jonathan gained skills as a meat cutter and worked consistently from 2009-2012 at stores such as Food Lion, Food Depot, and Piggly Wiggly, even earning employee of the quarter at his first store. During this period, he paid the full amount of his child support order each month plus a percentage of his arrears, amounting to $566 per month. He was determined to pay off his debt and make sure that he would not die owing money to the state

“I would have paid all of this debt at one time if I could,” says Jonathan, but at this point he was nowhere close to being able to do this. Instead, he paid what he could little-by-little. As a result, his hard work and determination enabled him to reduce his arrears by thousands of dollars.

Jonathan was heading down the right track.

Another Setback

In the summer of 2012, Jonathan and his fiancé were scraping by to pay the bills. Desperate for a way to earn extra cash, he discovered that he was able to win quick cash through gambling.

“I got addicted to playing gambling machines for cash money. I started losing money and got behind on rent. I didn’t want to face my children after not being able to pay, and I thought I could gamble to get the money.”

The day came when Jonathan gambled away money that he needed to pay his family’s rent. Upon losing, he panicked and snatched the money from a manager at the gambling center. For his rash actions, he was charged with robbery by snatching and was sentenced to prison for the second time.

“I’ve been in prison for two years and three months now. The state just sent me two letters for two different cases and I owe a total of $45,308 in arrears ($18,209 non-TANF arrears and $27,099 TANF arrears). It’s discouraging. I’m in prison – what do they expect me to do?”

Georgia is one of three states that does not allow inmates to earn money while working in prison, leaving him no way to pay his debt while incarcerated. However, now that he is at a transitional center, Jonathan has the ability to work, earn money, and have some earnings withheld to pay child support.

He is currently working at Arko Veal Meat Co. earning $8.50 per hour and working 26 hours per week. This work enables him to have $389 withheld from his paycheck every month to go toward paying child support.

Barriers to Reentry

While Jonathan’s time in the transitional center is helping to prepare him for reentry, he will face new challenges upon release. His home is far from the transitional center where he currently resides, which means that he will lose his present job and have to look for another one. He tried to transfer to a transitional center closer to home in order to find a job that he could keep upon release, but he was denied that opportunity. Still, he is hopeful that he will be able to get his old job back at Food Depot when the time comes to be released.

If this opportunity does not work out, his plan is to try to get a job at a different grocery store called Harvey’s. The manager at this store has hired individuals with convictions before, which gives him hope that he can work there, too. He would earn around $10 an hour as a meat cutter.

Even once Jonathan is able to secure a job, he still faces the challenge of commuting to work daily due to his suspended driver’s license. His license will only be reinstated by paying a sum that is twice the amount of his current child support order of $566, in addition to paying the normal monthly order.

“When the child support agent firmly stated that the amount I pay to get my license reinstated does not include what is coming out of my check, I hung my head. I thought, ‘Man, I can’t do this.’”

This sum of $1,698 is simply too much for him to pay while trying to pay rent, bills, and other living expenses.

Jonathan tried to arrange an agreement to make a partial payment in order to get his license back at an earlier point in time: “I told the agent, ‘Ma’am, I really need a license. Can I make a partial payment?’ She said no and told me that the judge ordered me to pay the full amount. She then said that we could get it modified, but that it would cost $300 just to go before the judge. I told her I can’t come up with it.”

He estimates that it will take him a year of full-time work at the grocery store before he will be able to pay to have his driver’s license reinstated. For now, he plans to get to work by having his fiancé, who works a full-time job as a night-shift nurse assistant, or his adult son drive him there.

Jonathan has a sincere desire to do whatever it takes to support his kids, which he demonstrated during the three years leading up to his incarceration. He simply lacks the money needed to have his license reinstated because it must go toward meeting his family’s basic living expenses.

“Having a driver’s license would not only be my way to work, but it would also help out with my duties as a husband and father around our home. My son and daughter are starting Kindergarten and Pre-K and my fiancé works from 11 pm to 8 am, so I will have to take them to school before I go to work.

For now, he is determined to make the best use of his time in the transitional center as he prepares for his reentry. He expresses an air of freedom and hope that did not exist earlier in his life, despite being encumbered by debt. He knows what it looks like to fully embrace his roles as a responsible father and citizen, and he plans to continue down this path once he is released.

 

 

Inmates of any faith are encouraged to apply to the first “Faith and Character-Based” prison in Georgia, at Walker State Prison, located in the northwest corner of the state.  The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) is seeking to positively affect inmate behavior and reduce recidivism through this newly established program, which focuses on accountability, responsibility, integrity, and faith.

 

Inmates at Walker State Prison performing

Inmates at Walker State Prison performing

 

An important part of GCO’s research within its Prisoner Reentry Initiative involves visiting correctional facilities throughout the state to view firsthand what programs and services GDC offers to prepare offenders to transition back into society. This varies greatly by the quality of education, training, and treatment they receive during their incarceration. Some facilities are better than others, and this prison impressed us as having great potential for success.

Changed Expectations:  A Prison of Hope

Pulling up to Walker State Prison, it appeared that the prison was just like any other from the outside: razor-wire fence, guard tower, patrol car, lock-down facilities, and an overall feeling of intimidation. However, inside the prison, the atmosphere was quite different from what I expected. We were greeted by respectful inmates with head nods and hand-shakes, who appeared somewhat happy to see visitors. From observing a group of men in a classroom taking guitar lessons to seeing a large mural in the cafeteria depicting a scene from the Garden of Eden, an air of hope seemed to permeate the otherwise grim state facility.

What the GDC started in recent years with a dozen or so faith and character-based dorms throughout the state has evolved into this new two-year initiative being tested in Georgia. The success of these initial dorms paved the way for expanding the program into a prison-wide capacity at Walker in August 2011.  This idea was first tested by Lawtey Correctional Institution in Starke, Florida, whose faith and character-based program has shown to positively affect inmate behavior and reduce recidivism since 2003.

Once inmates complete the two-year program, they will either transition into society (via parole, probation, or maxing-out) or transfer to another prison to finish their sentence. Participation in the faith-based component of the program is optional to inmates, but it can be readily accessed through taking various elective classes that are offered. Further, volunteers from the community come into the prison to mentor and help inmates grow in their respective faiths.

Culture of Reform = Unlocked Lockers

At the core of the program is the idea that inmates should be men of character. This is not a policy that is forced from the top-down; rather, it is a goal that each inmate internalizes personally.The pilot group of men adopted articles that govern the way they interact with each other and painted them on the cafeteria wall to be on display for all to see. They even decided to keep all of the lockers in their living quarters unlocked as a reminder to be men of integrity. This powerful symbol – exemplified in the unlocked locker – shows the extent to which the inmates strive to create a culture of reform that is distinct from other prisons.

The staff and inmates at Walker State Prison are cultivating something that is indeed unique among Georgia prisons, as well as in the country at large.

The chaplain shared with us that sometimes men come into his office crying because they feel a sense of release from the oppression that marks the prisons from where they came.

It often takes time for inmates who recently transfer into Walker to adjust to the new prison culture. However, once this starts to happen, the shell around their heart begins to crack, and for the first time in years an inmate may be seen with a smile on his face, finding a ray of hope during this dark time in his life.

Educational Focus

During our visit, I had the opportunity to attend one of the elective classes offered at the prison, taught by volunteer Bruce King.  He provides valuable assessments to measure inmates’ vocational competencies and gifts, where they discover the type of jobs for which they are a good fit.  They also learn how to reframe their story in a positive light and explain to employers why they are the best candidates for a particular job. This seminar gives inmates priceless tools to overcome formidable barriers to employment (such as getting hired with a criminal record), as well as the confidence to know what they are naturally good at doing.

Much more than seminars are offered.  In fact, the entire prison has an educational focus. The inmates spend their day taking both general education and elective classes. The general education classes have proven to be very successful in enabling inmates to acquire a GED certification. Elective classes are more faith-focused, allowing inmates to choose classes based on their respective faiths. Currently Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jehovah’s Witness, and Wiccan faiths are represented.

The electives are facilitated entirely by inmates and volunteers, as the state does not provide funding or staff to run the faith and character-based program. Two electives at the prison, Greek and Hebrew classes, are taught by seminary-trained inmates from Phillips State Prison (this prison offers courses from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary). This model of inmate-facilitation provides a great opportunity for inmates to assume leadership roles, to grow in confidence, to hone their professional skills, and to positively impact their fellow inmates.

Beautiful Trash and Second Chances

The counselor at the prison introduced us to several inmates throughout our tour, and one of these men supervised the art program. We had the privilege of seeing pictures of some of the masterpieces this group produced. The majority of their paintings depicted scenes from the Bible, such as Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane and Daniel in the lion’s den.  They paint the murals on bed sheets and donate them to churches, foster homes, vacation Bible schools, etc. The group also uses recycled cardboard to build creative works of art, including a toy castle, motorcycle, model plane, and a life-sized grandfather clock with coke insignia all over it (this piece looked so good that it’s now sitting in the Coca-Cola Museum).

The supervisor of this group of artists told us that the message they want to convey through their artwork is that God takes what the world deems as trash and turns it into something beautiful.

It is this same message of redemption that they hope to communicate with their lives.

On a larger scale, at Walker inmates are beginning to see what is possible as they develop a new way of thinking and believing, recovering what has been marred from years of destructive thought patterns. They are seeing their worth as human beings who have been given unique gifts and abilities, and recognizing fresh opportunities where they can serve other people.

For offenders who desire a second chance at life, Walker State Prison is a good place to begin this journey.

Subscribe

* indicates required

Subscribe

* indicates required
Donate