MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING (FROM JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONS, 1978, BY NORMAN JOHNSTON AND LEONARD D SAVITZ - SEE NCJ-47922)

• NCJ Number: 47949
• Author(s): A H ROSENFELD
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 13 pages
• Corporate Author: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Historical Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: REPRINTED FROM AN EVALUATIVE SUMMARY OF RESEARCH - MAP PROGRAM OUTCOMES IN THE INITIAL DEMONSTRATION STATES AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION DOCUMENT, NO. 7, 1975

Annotation

THE ORIGINS, RATIONALE, AND EFFECTS OF THE USE OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING (MAP) REGARDING PAROLE AND PRISONER TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE EXAMINED.

Abstract

MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING WAS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL PROBLEMS. DUE TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN PRISON AND PAROLE AUTHORITIES, TRAINING PROGRAMS WERE NOT WELL SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE TIMING OF RELEASE. ANOTHER FACTOR UNDERLYING THESE PROBLEMS WAS THE FREQUENTLY ARBITRARY NATURE OF PAROLE BOARD DECISIONS REGARDING READINESS FOR RELEASE. AS THE PROGRAM EVOLVED, IT INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTAIN RELEASE DATE; (2) EXPLICIT, OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE; (3) EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRISONERS, PAROLE AUTHORITIES, AND INSTITUTIONAL PERSONNEL; (4) PRISONER PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONMAKING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT CONTRACT TERMS; AND (5) PRISONER CHOICE OF INDIVIDUALIZED REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS. THE PROGRAM'S EXPECTED SHORT-TERM RESULTS ARE OF SEVERAL TYPES: (1) FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, PRISONERS WOULD BE TREATED AS RESPONSIBLE ADULTS, CAPABLE OF JUDGING THEIR NEEDS AND BARGAINING WITH THE SYSTEM; (2) FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRISONER REHABILITATION, PRISONERS WOULD BE MORE MOTIVATED TO USE PRISON TIME AND RESOURCES MORE CONSTRUCTIVELY; (3) FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRISON ADMINISTRATION, BETTER PRISONER MOTIVATION WOULD MEAN SMOOTHER PROGRAM OPERATION AND FEWER DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS; AND (4) FROM THE PAROLE BOARD PERSPECTIVE, OBJECTIVE RELEASE CRITERIA COULD SIMPLIFY THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND PROVIDE A COMMON GROUND FOR DECISIONMAKING. MANY OF THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ASSUME A CHANGE IN ATTITUDES OR EFFORT BY THE INMATES WHICH SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO BETTER PERFORMANCE IN PRISON AND POSSIBLY FOLLOWING RELEASE. ALSO, IN AS MUCH AS MAP IS DESIGNED TO REDUCE PAROLE BOARD ARBITRARINESS BY REQUIRING THAT A DEFINITE PAROLE DATE BE SET, MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE GREATER JUSTICE AND HUMANITY INTO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE CONCEPT ALSO ASSUMES THAT IF INMATES ARE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS, ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, ARE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES THEY CONSIDER RELEVANT, AND ARE REWARDED FOR THEIR EFFORTS, THEY WILL BEHAVE BETTER IN PRISON. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS INDIVIDUALIZED AND BASED UPON INMATE PARTICIPATION AND CHOICE, IT APPEARS TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN APPROPRIATE MATCH BETWEEN INMATE NEEDS AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND TO IMPROVE THE COORDINATION OF TRAINING SCHEDULES. FINALLY, A MAJOR UNKNOWN ADMINISTRATIVE AREA IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES. DESPITE LEGAL RESEARCH SUGGESTING THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE VALID, UNLESS OR UNTIL THEY ARE CHALLENGED IN COURT, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THEIR STATUS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. (KBL)