The Honor Program:
The Road to Effective Offender
Programming
Response to Expert Panel Report on Adult Offender and
Recidivism Reduction Programming
The Steering Committee for the Honor Program
Kenneth E. Hartman, Chairman California State
Prison-Los Angeles County
www.prisonhonorprogram.org
prisonhonorprogram@hotniail.com
July 2007
THE HONOR PROGRAM:
THE ROAD TO EFFECTIVE OFFENDER PROGRAMMING
INTRODUCTION
The Steering Committee for the Honor Program wishes, first and foremost, to applaud the
effort of the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming (Expert
Panel). The Report to the California State Legislature (Report), dated June 29, 2007, is both
comprehensive and insightful; clearly the product of true professionals working to bring real
reform to a terribly dysfunctional system. Reading the Report was, to be perfectly frank, a
heartening experience — clearly articulated, unemotional truth laid out in an unbiased manner.
We fervently hope that all the stakeholders — the governor, the legislature, the department,
the various labor unions, the courts — all take the time and effort to analyze this aptly named
"Roadmap." There is no doubt in our minds that implementation of all the recommendations
of the Expert Panel would fundamentally, and beneficially, reform the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This would, in turn, lead to improved results,
increased safety for staff, prisoners, and all of society, decreased costs, and the reintroduction
of reason into the prison system. Most important to the ultimate success or failure of systemic
reform, we believe that the great mass of prisoners, battered and traumatized by more than a
generation of purely punitive policies, can be brought on board; this simply must occur before
any forward progress can be realized.
As the Expert Panel so accurately noted, "despite the name and mission changes that added
rehabilitation to the CDCR, we found its organizational culture to still be largely 'institutional'
— focused on incarceration rather than rehabilitation."1 While the Expert Panel's Report
certainly is a "roadmap," the culture of the CDCR is, just as certainly, a "roadblock" to real
reform. As we noted in our initial proposal, "rehabilitation of prisoners must be the
foundation of everything that happens in a prison system; otherwise the prisons degenerate
into warehouses of suffering and pointless separation. In other words, they become just like
our prisons."2 We are truly concerned that the tremendous promise of this moment, of this
first real opportunity in a generation to effect actual reform to the prison system will be
stymied in the potholes and deadends of the CDCR's reality on the ground. As the Expert
Panel noted, there have been more than a dozen formal reports dealing with the crisis in
California's prisons, and the prison system has essentially failed to implement any of the
recommendations made. In fact, up until this point, the only way through the roadblock has
been behind federal judges who have been forced to wrest control of substantial parts of the
system from the state.
We believe, based on our own reading of the various reports, and our collective hundreds of
years of direct experience, that no reform will occur without a change in the culture of
prisoners no less fundamental than the change in the CDCR called for by the Expert Panel.
The road to this culture shift can be found in the Honor Program at the California State Prison
- Los Angeles County. (CSP-LAC) (For a comprehensive description of the Honor Program
project, please visit www.prisonhonorprogram.org.) As we will discuss at greater length
below, the Honor Program works because it (1) reinforces positive behavior3, (2) functions in
1
Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming: Report to the California State
Legislature (herein after Expert Panel Report), June 29, 2007, Page 119
2
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, January 2007, The Steering Committee for the
Honor Program, Page 1
3
Expert Panel Report, Page 12
much the same fashion as a "therapeutic community,"4 (3) opens a "space" wherein the kinds
of rehabilitative treatment programs called for in the Expert Panel Report can actually occur 5,
and (4) reintroduces raised expectations into a world of dashed hopes and assumed failure. 6
The Honor Program is fully consistent with, and supportive of, every goal and
recommendation made by the Expert Panel.
The Steering Committee requests that the members of the Expert Panel, and the members of
the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, support the passage of Senate Bill 299
(Rehabilitation - Honor Programs) as one clear lane on the long road that must be traveled if
the CDCR is to be reformed into an organization that fulfills its primary mission of protecting
the people of the state of California. Because Level III and IV prisoners are serving longer
periods of time for, generally, more serious crimes, it makes sense (and is consistent with the
Expert Panels Report7) to focus considerable energy on this cohort of prisoners.
Passage of SB299 will be beneficial to the process of instituting rehabilitation for at least two
fundamental reasons: (1) The CDCR will receive a clear, unambiguous message from the
political leadership of this state that business as usual is over, that expectations have actually
changed; and (2) the prisoner population of the CDCR, who simply must be brought into the
process of reform for there to be any possibility of success, will also receive a clear,
unambiguous message. We cannot stress enough how bad the situation is for the average
California prisoner: violence, unrest, and chaos rule on most yards. Participation in positive
programming and lifestyle choices is more than a casual decision based on the prison system
providing or not providing these options — it can be a life or death decision. This is not
hyperbole; it is the unvarnished truth.
Failure of SB299 will send an equally clear message to all stakeholders (including the
prisoners) that reform is a word game, devoid of substance or commitment. The particular
message to prisoners will be a resounding slamming of the gates to anyone who is willing to
make real, positive, transformational change. This must not happen.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE/RISING RECIDIVISM
While we essentially agree with the analysis of the Expert Panel regarding the reasons for the
rising recidivism rates of the California prison population8 we believe an additional factor not
adequately addressed is the brutal and traumatic nature of the prison system itself.
As we have all experienced firsthand, occurring along with the loss of rehabilitative programs
has been the growing use of negative reinforcement to attempt to control the restive prison
population. More and more lockdowns, more "use of force" tactics, less ability to function in
any kind of "normal" fashion — all of this has succeeded in only one thing: the creation of a
highly resistant, badly traumatized group of prisoners who have been forced to exist in a
Hobbesian nightmare of gang and racial violence where the fight for personal safety trumps all
other concerns.
The CDCR's latest response to this sad reality has been to propose the creation of so-called
"Behavior Modification Units" (BMU) on all the general population yards. Another all too
illustrative case of big sticks and small thinking. All this would do is build another set of
4
Expert Panel Report, Page 32
Expert Panel Report, in toto
6
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Pages 8-10
7
Expert Panel Report, Pages 33-34
8
Expert Panel Report, Pages 3-6
5
hothouses to cultivate anger and negative leaders. This has all been done before and failed,
miserably.
We also think it is important to address the fact that even with the handicap of the Determinate
Sentencing Law's restrictions, and the general brutality of the system, there have always been
prisoners willing to program. (We contend, with the right kind of support, this would grow to
upwards of 80% of the prisoners.) The codification of the Honor Program would provide
space and support needed to break through this roadblock to reform. Our experience allows us
to confidently assert that Honor Program yards would quickly spread throughout the CDCR,
which would allow for the implementation of the recommendations of the Expert Panel.
SOMETHING IS PREVENTING
INTENDED RESULTS9
PROGRAMS
FROM
ACHIEVING
THEIR
"Clearly something is wrong."10 We couldn't agree with this assessment more. What is this
"something" alluded to in the Expert Panel's Report? In addition to the conclusions of the
Expert Panel we suggest the following:
A) A generation of brutality that has poisoned the prison system to such a degree that
"rehabilitation" is viewed as a joke, if not worse. This attitude pervades the CDCR,
from the top to the bottom, custody, non-custody, and even into the prisoners
themselves.11 No attempt to effect change that fails to take this reality into account has
any chance of succeeding.
B) The lockdown culture of the CDCR that is a constant roadblock to programming.
As the Expert Panel noted, lockdowns serve to interrupt rehabilitative treatment
programs and waste resources, rendering efforts to provide the kinds of services
needed to bring about change impotent.12 We noted in our initial proposal how the
lockdown culture has become pervasive, and how it has worked to instill a sense of
hopeless rage into prisoners.13 The prevalence of the lockdown as a "first-automatic"
response has to be ended.
THE HONOR PROGRAM IS A TREMENDOUS INCENTIVE
We are fully in accord with the overall recommendation of incentivizing positive behavior and
participation in rehabilitative treatment programs.14 Nevertheless, we are also, necessarily,
realists.
Much of what the Expert Panel calls for will require truly Herculean
political/legislative efforts; it is not realistic to expect this to occur any time soon. In the
meantime, spaces will have to be carved out of the chaos to begin the process of
transformation.
The Honor Program is that space and, consistent with the tone of the Expert Panel's Report, is
a genuine incentive. Our experience has taught us that people who have not served time in a
violent, dangerous prison simply do not understand how damaging an experience it is to the
prisoner. As we stated above, we believe this is one of the primary factors negatively
impacting the recidivism rate. Even absent support, and often in the face of official hostility,
9
Expert Panel Report, Page vii
Expert Panel Report, Page vii
11
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Pages 11-16
12
The Expert Panel Report, Appendix F
13
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Page 15
14
Expert Panel Report, in toto
10
the Honor Program's modest, cost-free rewards have resulted in greatly reduced rates of
violence and disorder.15 We remain confident that implementation of Honor Programs
throughout the system would jump-start the Expert Panel's recommendations. We are equally
confident that once the Honor Program is written into law a large number of prisoners will
volunteer to participate; a ready pool of early-adopters to man the "pilots" called for by the
Expert Panel.16 Again, our direct experience allows us to assert with assurance that the
existence of permanent, supported Honor Programs will serve as excellent and effective
incentives.
ACTION PLAN
Consistent with our initial proposal,17 we believe that at least one additional "pre-condition"
should be added to the Expert Panel's recommendations18 — the creation of Honor Program
facilities wherein positive programming will actually have a chance to succeed and not be
subsumed in the violence and chaos rampant throughout the CDCR. We agree that
overcrowding is terrible and a serious impediment to successful programming, but we must be
forthright; the prison system was failing before triple bunking and dayroom beds. The
negative, anti-programming policies of the CDCR have to be reformed. The Honor Program
is one, proven method of doing this that costs essentially nothing and does not require years of
start-up time.
The Honor Program does, in fact, result in several immediate gains, documented on the
ground, in practice:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Less frequent lockdowns due to minimal violence;
Less racial/gang tension due to the voluntary nature of participation;
Less overall disruption as a result of #1 and #2;
Less drug abuse due to random drug testing;19
More program participation on account of less negative peer pressure;
More opportunity for community involvement on account of decreased violence and less
frequent lockdowns;
7. More interracial activities on account of more positive nature of environment;
8. More chances to achieve positive, personal transformation on account of #5, #6, and #7.
The "normal" prison yard in this state is so chaotic and disordered it is near to impossible to
attract and develop the kind of community involvement called for by the Expert Panel.20 Our
experience on both kinds of yards has taught us the sour lesson that prison, as it is usually
operated, scares off even the most well-meaning and dedicated of volunteers. The result of
this is prisoners become even more isolated and hostile, and much less amenable to the
rehabilitation treatment programs called for by the Expert Panel. Again, we cannot stress
enough this simple fact: no matter how effective a given program may be, if prisoners do not
elect to participate it will have no effect.
"[T]he physical locations where programs are being delivered must be safe and [ ] there must
15
The Honor Program: Paving the Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, April 2007, The Steering Committee
for the Honor Program, Page 29
16
Expert Panel Report, Page 54
17
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Pages 17-24
18
Expert Panel Report, Page xv
19
Expert Panel Report, Page 102
20
Expert Panel Report, Page 122
be incentive for offenders to participate."21 We concur, without reservation. We add only that
the Honor Program satisfies both of these conditions for "successful offender programming."
The Honor Program results in a safer environment by all measures, and it is a real (equally
important, it can really exist, now) incentive.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM
"The Panel believes that California's correctional culture is oriented more towards control and
punishment, than rehabilitation."22 We concur, without reservation. We add our own
assessment that the problem is even deeper than the Expert Panel may have felt comfortable
addressing.23
In the CDCR there is a persistent culture of control and punishment, to be sure, but there is
also an insidious element that man the barricades against reform, against rehabilitation, against
virtually everything the Expert Panel recommends. Reform can be so easily knocked off the
road by the actions of this element because they work hand-in-glove with the worst elements
of the prisoner population. We know this is ugly, and we do not intend to tarnish all the
leadership of the CDCR. However, we have seen too much ugliness to remain silent.
It is perhaps for this sad fact, above all others, that the codification of Honor Programs is most
necessary. By removing complete and unfettered discretion from the CDCR, this element can
be nullified. We fear, absent this legislative prod, the status quo, deeply entrenched and still
quite powerful, will continue to be the active roadblock they have been for the past 20 years.24
One additional, more uplifting note on this subject is warranted. Honor Program facilities
would be excellent training grounds for those staff and administrators who desire reform (they
do exist) in how to run a prison with a more balanced approach to control and rehabilitation.
As the Expert Panel noted, quite astutely, the profound changes called for in the Report are not
going to happen quickly or easily.25 During the transition period, fully-functioning Honor
Program yards will continue to provide the kind of evidence CSP-LAC's Honor Program has
already provided that programming yards can happen; the catalyst our program is, even
without official support.26
THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Honor Program directly advances at least two of the Expert Panel's recommendations, and
does not impede any of the others. More broadly, the Honor Program concept works directly
in accord with the overall agenda of systemic reform the Expert Panel identified as necessary
to achieving the goals of lowered recidivism and population/cost reduction. Endless
expansion of the prison at the expense of other, vital state services, not to mention the
destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives, is counterproductive, wasteful, and immoral.
Recommendation #2:
21
Expert Panel Report, Page 91
Expert Panel Report, Page viii
23
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Pages 11-12
24
The fact that the CDCR fought so long against the provision of life-saving medical care, essential dental care,
and basic mental health care should be evidence enough of this reactionary element.
25
Expert Panel Report, Pages 51-53
26
This lack of official support is still more evidence of the entrenched recalcitrance to the kind of prison
environment the Expert Panel knows is necessary to implement rehabilitative treatment programs with any hope
of success.
22
"Enact legislation to expand its [the CDCR] system of positive reinforcements
for offenders who successfully complete their rehabilitation program
requirements, comply with institutional rules in prison, and fulfill their parole
obligations in the community."
The passage of SB299 could not be more in line with this recommendation. The Honor
Program is a positive incentive for prisoners who comply with institutional rules, and provides
the space wherein the rehabilitative treatment programs needed to effect true reform can
happen, which would substantially increase the chances of parolees fulfilling their obligations
in the community. The Honor Program is also the only incentive of this kind operating in the
CDCR. We continue to stress the absolute necessity for stability and safety on prison yards
for any successful programming to occur. No prisoner caught in the daily struggle for
personal survival will be able to meaningfully participate in rehabilitative treatment programs.
It is that simple and stark a reality.
Recommendation #5:
"Create and monitor a behavior management plan for each offender."
An integral part of the Honor Program is the Individual Development Plan (IDP)27, which is a
close cousin of the behavioral management plan called for by the Expert Panel; we contend it
is, functionally, the in-prison version of the Expert Panel's recommendation. Either way, our
IDP would not impede that called for in the Report.
It should be noted that the failure of CDCR officials at all levels to ever attempt to implement
the Honor Program's IDP is a good indicator of the institutionalized resistance to
rehabilitative-type programs. Further, our experience has been that any form of prisonerspecific, individualized programming will be met with considerable resistance. Mandating the
full implementation of the Honor Program, including the IDP facet of the program, would be
useful training for the ultimate implementation of Recommendation #5 of the Report. During
the process of activating yards, the CDCR will be able to work out the kinks and develop
infrastructure and training models for the creation of system-wide behavior management
plans. (For the record, The Steering Committee fully supports Recommendation #5, a vital
step towards the creation of a more successful prison system.)
CONCLUSION
"[T]he Governor's Office and Legislature must quickly develop and pass new legislation over
the next few months that will create meaningful incentives for prisoners...to participate in and
complete rehabilitative programs. As [the Expert Panel has] already stated, if offenders don't
have access to rehabilitative programs or incentives for completing them, then California
cannot expect to reduce its recidivism rates."28
As this is written, SB299, which would codify the Honor Program, is in the California
Assembly awaiting further hearings. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association
and the California Correctional Supervisor's Association have formally endorsed the bill,
meaning that the parties who actually deal with the reality of prison on the ground all see how
27
28
The Honor Program: Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System, Pages 21-22 & Appendix B
Expert Panel Report, Page 123
useful the Honor Program would be to the prison system. Unfortunately, after tepid support
early on in the process, the CDCR has elected to launch a specious, backdoor opposition to the
bill, claiming it would result in "empty beds" during the conversion of yards to Honor
Programs.29 (This is not the case, at all.) This is a clear indication of the CDCR's actual
position regarding rehabilitation; the department simply cannot see its way to true, systemic
transformation and reflexively resists even good ideas.
The road to a rehabilitative prison system will be long and arduous, and the resistant element
will throw up as many roadblocks as possible. They will drag their feet on implementation
and hope the pressure to change will pass. Every independent assessment of the CDCR has
come to this basic conclusion, including three separate federal judges. It can often seem
pointless to even try to effect reform.
The members of The Steering Committee, representing the interests of the many prisoners
who desire positive change, are motivated by a different imperative — this is about our lives,
literally. As much as we respect and agree with the conclusions of the Expert Panel, our
perspective is radically different and informed by direct experience. We reiterate: reform
cannot occur in the midst of chaos and violence; the Honor Program is a viable, tested on the
ground, way to create the stable space necessary for reform to happen; the Honor Program is a
tremendous incentive to prisoners to encourage participation in rehabilitative treatment
programs; no matter how well designed, no rehabilitative treatment program will work if
prisoners don't participate; prisoners caught in the terrible violence of the CDCR cannot
participate in any meaningful way in rehabilitative treatment programs; the CDCR will not
create stable spaces for rehabilitative programming unless compelled by the law; SB299 is an
effective and reasonable way to compel the CDCR to create stable, program-friendly yards;
reform cannot occur in the midst of chaos and violence.
For all of the reasons above, The Steering Committee for the Honor Program respectfully
requests that you formally and publicly support the passage and signing of SB299 as a rational
first step to bringing about the systemic reform called for in the Expert Panel's Report.
Thank you for your consideration.
29
Letter from The Steering Committee for the Honor Program to the Members of the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, dated June 26, 2007, affixed to this report.
The Steering Committee for the Honor Program
Kenneth E. Hartman, Chairman
CSP-LAC/A2-217L
P.O. Box 4430 Lancaster, CA
93539-4430
June 26, 2007
TO: The Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee RE: SB299
SUPPORT (ADDENDUM)
We are including this addendum to our proposal and fiscal analysis [The Honor Program: Road
to a Rehabilitative Prison System (Revised June 2007) and The Honor Program: Paving the
Road to a Rehabilitative Prison System (Revised June 2007)] due to the last-minute, unfounded
objection of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, lodged through the Department
of Finance, at the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on this bill.
The objection states that implementation of Honor Program yards would result in "empty
beds" during the activation process, something that is too burdensome in light of the
population crisis within the prison system.
This is a specious argument for at least three reasons, as outlined below:
1.
The plain language of SB299. "(f) The department shall
phase in implementation of Honor Programs at all
institutions containing level III or level IV yards, as
follows: (1) Once a sufficient number of inmates eligible
for the program are identified within an institution,
the department shall transfer those eligible inmates to a designated Honor Program yard
at that institution." Clearly, no prisoner would be moved to an Honor Program until
enough who qualify are identified to fill an entire yard. This would not result in even one
empty bed.
2.
This objection is either the product of ignorance of how
the system works, on the ground, or is deliberately
deceptive. In the Level-III and IV institutions, no bed
lays fallow for more than a day, and rarely that long.
We assert the CDCR is, once again, using the overcrowding bogeyman to avoid
responsibility for the reality of the prison system. (And, of course, the overcrowding is
directly and primarily due to the failure to rehabilitate, which leads straight to the
terrible recidivism rate. The Honor Program mandates a real, rehabilitation-friendly
environment.)
Assembly Appropriations Committee June 26, 2007
Page 2
3. Finally, the CDCR is not accurately assessing the interest of prisoners to live in a safer and
more productive environment. Our collective hundreds of years of prison experience
allows us to assert, with the highest confidence, implementation of Honor Program
yards will be very easy because demand to participate will be very high. The vast
majority of prisoners want to live in an environment where rehabilitation is possible.
The CDCR has utterly failed to do this on their own initiative; prisoners do not trust
their sincerity. However, with the Honor Program legitimized by the force of law,
whole yards will be converted quickly. Violence will drop dramatically, costs will be
reined-in, and the illusory promise of rehabilitation will have a real chance to be
realized. Absent the force of law, we are equally certain the status quo of disruption,
violence, and systemic failure will continue.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter, and thank you for your support of SB299,
which will result in tremendous positive change to the prison system of this state.
Sincerely,
KENNETH E. HARTMAN
The Steering Committee for the Honor Program, Chairman