Public Safety: A Matter of Accountability Send To Printer | Close Window

By Jack Cowley

I recall during the time I was a prison warden reviewing research that assessed job satisfaction. I was not surprised that wardens were among the most satisfied of those professions evaluated. Dedication to service is an understatement in our field. These men and women are among the most dedicated in the world in terms of accomplishing the task at hand, which is succinctly put “maintaining a safe and secure facility.” Secure in that inmates do not leave the yard without their paperwork being signed. Safe in that staff do not get hurt - too much.

All prisons of which I am aware, offer inmates opportunities to modify their behavior. Ask any prison chaplain about available space for one more volunteer program, and he/she will put up a “no vacancy” sign. There are psychologists, psychiatrists, school teachers, counselors, case managers, addiction recovery providers of all sorts, clergy, artists and entertainers who provide a multitude of resources to inmates. Wardens spend a large amount of their time dealing with elements which promote the “safety” of the facility. They feel “satisfied” that under their watch, inmates are provided every opportunity of which to avail themselves in order to lead successful lives once released. Yet we know that a citizen is more apt to be victimized by a repeat offender than by an individual who has never committed a crime. Many repeat offenders have in fact been to prison.

Wardens don’t think much about an inmate’s life after prison other than we seem to say frequently, “Oh he’ll be back.” Our concerns are primarily focused inside the prison fences and the very manner in which our state correctional systems are structured, promotes a reality that a warden cannot be held accountable for the recidivism of the “previously incarcerated” (that’s a new term I’m trying to get used to saying rather than “ex-offender” to satisfy political correctness, you understand). Inmates are moved frequently from yard to yard for a multitude of reasons, therefore, no particular administrator within the system takes “ownership” (or responsibility) of the inmate. Thus, we are left with a corrections system in this country in which high numbers of the previously incarcerated, fail at becoming socially acceptable citizens than do succeed. This fact leaves the public at risk. Remember, wardens for the most part are satisfied that they do all they can do in providing adequate opportunities for inmates to learn the tools which will keep them out of prison.

Many criminal justice system professionals, citizens and especially politicians, are saying that “something” must be done. But what? It is the “something” that continues to elude us. Getting tougher on inmates than we have already been, as many continue to strenuously insist that we should, is not a feasible option. In light of the fact that the torture of enemy combatants in this country is prohibited, getting any tougher on inmates is simply never going to happen! I am unclear as to how much tougher incarceration can get and remain legal! In the field of American corrections, we have gone from breaking the body, to breaking the spirit. We have tried building our way out of crime by constructing more and more penal institutions and are now on the eve of bankrupting the country. But I have an idea, one which is novel and deserves serious contemplation! Consider the effect of holding Directors of Corrections, Wardens, Parole/Probation Supervisors, and state employees, accountable for recidivism. What if these individuals had on their yearly evaluations that the recidivism rate within their span of control was reduced by twenty percent? What if the safety of the public was really at the top of the list in terms of their “task at hand” instead of only maintaining safety and order in addition to providing opportunity within the fences? What if prison officials and corrections personnel on and off the yard were truly concerned with job security and meritorious advancement were held responsible for a person’s recidivistic behavior once she/he leaves the penitentiary? I know many men of whom I am personally proud to say, “He left my yard and caused no harm.”

I predict given the enormity of what I am suggesting and the consequences of upsetting a long held status quo, that professionals within the system will say it is not possible for corrections officials to be held accountable for recidivism. In fact, I was advised by one Deputy Director of a state correctional system that wardens could never be held accountable for inmate behavior. But, it is possible. I have seen it in action. The State of Oklahoma has come very close to making professional accountability a reality within the field. House Bill 2101 which passed in 2007 mandates that, “The Department of Corrections shall develop rules and policies which ensure that recidivism rates are included in the performance reviews, promotions and compensation adjustments of correctional officers. Holding corrections officials accountable for correcting! How novel! Now that’s a start!

In conclusion, the time is at hand for the safety of the public to top the prison professional’s tasks by releasing inmates back into the public who do not re-offend. It is time to hold the corrections system accountable for just that very thing. Yes, it will take a complete overhaul of the way business is currently handled within our correctional systems. It will not be easy. But by demanding that those “satisfied” wardens create systems which promote meaningful change in inmate behavior as a matter of public safety as opposed to just offering an opportunity for change thereby making them accountable, we will see dramatic and positive changes in the amount of crime committed in this country.