Table of contents
A lot of people leaving prison get their first real help from someone connected to a church. Sometimes it is a volunteer who ran a Bible study inside, or a mentor from a congregation. Sometimes it is a ministry with a bed, a ride, or a job lead. Often nobody else is offering one.
Faith was part of how I got through my own time. I wrote in my memoir that I choose to have faith. Part of that is faith that if I stay connected to myself, to others, and to my Higher Power, things can turn around.[1] Some of my early recovery meetings were held in a church.[1]
So I’m not writing this from outside faith.
But I also think people leaving prison deserve programs that work, not only programs that mean well.
This guide covers what faith-based reentry programs usually include, what the research says about them, what “restorative” means in this setting, and what to ask before you join or send someone to one.
Direct Answer
Faith-based reentry programs help people leaving prison through religious teaching combined with practical support such as mentoring, life skills, substance use education, and help with housing and jobs. The evidence is mixed. A Minnesota evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative found that participants had a 26 percent lower risk of rearrest, 35 percent lower risk of reconviction, and 40 percent lower risk of reincarceration for a new offense, and the evaluators credited mentoring that continued after release.[2][3] But a review of faith-based programs inside prisons found no effect on misconduct.[4] A restorative approach adds repairing harm to victims and the community.[5] Before joining, ask about mentoring after release, whether faith is required, and what practical help is offered.
What faith-based reentry usually includes
There is no single model. CrimeSolutions, the federal research rating site run by the National Institute of Justice, describes faith-based correctional programs as ranging from one day to 18 months. Some follow a formal curriculum, and others are mostly church activities.[4]
Common parts include church leadership, faith education, spiritual counseling, Bible study, and worship services. Chaplains, volunteers, religious leaders, and prison staff all run them.[4] In one facility where I was held, the Sunday Bible study was led by another man serving time.[1] Most of these activities happen during the sentence, and the research on them only measured behavior inside.
The reentry programs go further than that. Because the risk does not end at the gate, they try to follow the person out the door with a mentor, a congregation, and help with the basics. That is where it gets more interesting.
What the research shows
The best-known study in this area is the Minnesota Department of Corrections evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. Did the program change what happened after release? Mostly, yes.
InnerChange was developed by Prison Fellowship Ministries. It runs in three phases over 30 months. It covers substance abuse education, victim impact awareness, life skills, cognitive skills, education, community reentry, religious instruction, and moral development. Participants do not have to be Christian. Each one is matched with a mentor while still locked up.[2]
Minnesota compared 366 participants to 366 matched men released between 2003 and 2009 who did not take part.[2] The results held after controlling for other factors. InnerChange cut the risk of rearrest by 26 percent and reconviction by 35 percent. It cut reincarceration for a new offense by 40 percent. It did not change revocations for technical violations, which are rule breaks on supervision that are not new crimes.[2]
CrimeSolutions rates the Minnesota program Promising, based on one study.[3] That means it is a real result, but it is one program in one state.
There is another side to the evidence, though. It is less flattering. CrimeSolutions also reviewed faith-based correctional programs as a general practice. That review rests on a meta-analysis of 15 studies. It rated them Ineffective for reducing misconduct inside prison and Ineffective for reducing antisocial beliefs. In the attitude studies, participants actually showed an increase in antisocial beliefs compared with matched people who did not participate.[4]
I think both findings are worth taking seriously. Why would one faith program cut rearrests while faith programs in general did nothing for behavior inside?
Faith content alone, delivered inside the walls, does not have strong evidence behind it. A structured program is different. When it combines faith with treatment content, mentoring, and support after release, at least one solid study shows fewer people going back.
Why the mentoring part may be what works
The Minnesota evaluators said the better recidivism results were likely due to the continuum of mentoring support some participants received in prison and in the community.[2]
CrimeSolutions describes the same design. The mentor relationship starts before release and continues for 12 months after. Program staff help with housing and employment. The idea is simple. Relationships with people who are active in their communities help a person build a different life.[3]
The last time I was released, I had no job, no money, and no resources.[1] Belief does not fix any of those on its own.
A mentor can help with all three, even if only by making calls, giving rides, and knowing who is hiring. That means the relationship is doing practical work, not only spiritual work, and I think that is the part a lot of programs leave out.
So when I look at a faith-based program, what do I ask first? Not how much Scripture is in it. It is who will still be showing up six months after release.
What “restorative” means here
Restorative justice is not a single program. The National Institute of Justice describes it as a set of principles.[5]
Crime harms victims directly and the community indirectly. The first job of justice is to repair harm to victims, and the second is to restore the community. The person who caused the harm is responsible for helping repair it and for showing real change that prevents future harm.[5]
A lot of faith traditions already carry ideas close to those: confession, making amends, reconciliation. That is likely part of why “restorative” and “faith-based reentry” get used together. Doshie Piper and J. Renee Trombley wrote a book for Cognella Academic Publishing on this. It is titled A Restorative Approach to Faith-Based Reentry.[6]
In practice, a restorative approach in a faith-based program could mean victim impact work inside, which InnerChange includes.[2] It could mean a plan to make amends where that is safe and wanted. It could also mean a congregation that treats the returning person as accountable and welcome at the same time. I think it is rare for one group to do both. Some places hold you accountable and keep you at a distance. Other places welcome you and never ask what you owe. A restorative congregation would have to do both, and that is hard work for volunteers.
Still, restorative work should never be forced on a victim. The NIJ principles put victims and the community at the center of the response to crime.[5] So who is the program really serving? A program that pushes reconciliation for the returning person’s benefit has the order backward.
Questions to ask before you join or refer someone
If you are the one coming home, or you work with people who are, a few questions sort out a lot. Ask them plainly; a good program will not mind.
- Whether the program requires a particular faith or is open to anyone
- Whether there is a mentor, and how long the mentor stays involved after release
- What practical help is included, such as housing, jobs, rides, and treatment referrals
- Whether it includes substance use education or treatment, or only faith content
- Whether it has ever been evaluated, and what the evaluation found
- How it handles victims and amends
InnerChange was open to non-Christians, and the Minnesota evaluation still found lower rearrest, reconviction, and new-offense reincarceration among the men who took part, which tells me that a program does not have to require belief in order to help people stay out.[2] A program that requires a conversion to get a bed is a different kind of program, and it is fair to know that before signing up.
If someone needs addiction treatment, a faith program should not replace it. In my own recovery, some of my AA meetings were held in a church, and I also went through treatment programs.[1] One did not replace the other.
Where ReturnPath fits
I built ReturnPath as a structured curriculum for reentry and recovery programs, and it can run as the main curriculum in peer-led, faith-based, reentry, or community settings. The Reentry & Justice track gives participants daily reading and writing work on identity, accountability, and the practical steps after release.
For a faith-based program, that means the structured part can sit next to the mentoring and the congregation, not compete with it. The halfway house reentry curriculum page shows how that looks in a residential setting.
My memoir, A Vision of Hope, covers addiction, prison, and the faith I held onto on the way home.
Closing
Faith-based reentry programs are not all the same.
It does not make sense to treat them as one thing, either.
The strongest result in the research came from a program that paired faith with mentoring, treatment content, and support after release. The weakest results came from faith activity inside prison on its own.
That is why I would judge a faith-based program the same way I would judge any reentry program. Ask who shows up after release, what practical help is there, and whether it takes the harm done to victims seriously. In the end, a program that does those things well is worth recommending, whatever building it meets in.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a faith-based reentry program?
It is a program run by or with religious groups to help people leaving prison return to the community. Common parts include faith education, Bible study, spiritual counseling, and mentoring, and some programs add life skills, substance use education, and help with housing and jobs.[3][4]
Do faith-based reentry programs reduce recidivism?
The evidence is mixed. A Minnesota evaluation of InnerChange found a 26 percent lower risk of rearrest and a 40 percent lower risk of reincarceration for a new offense.[2] A meta-analysis of faith-based programs inside prisons found no effect on misconduct.[4]
Why might InnerChange have worked?
The Minnesota evaluators said the results were likely due to mentoring that started in prison and continued in the community. The program also included substance abuse education, life skills, and reentry planning.[2][3]
What does a restorative approach to reentry mean?
Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm. NIJ describes principles that put victims and the community at the center and hold the person who caused harm responsible for repairing it and for showing real change.[5]
Do you have to be religious to join a faith-based reentry program?
It depends on the program. InnerChange did not require participants to be Christian.[2] Ask any program directly before you join.
Can a faith-based program replace addiction treatment?
It should not. InnerChange combined faith content with substance abuse education.[2] Faith programs inside prison on their own did not reduce misconduct in the CrimeSolutions review.[4] Use faith support alongside treatment, not instead of it.
References
- Drasen A. A Vision of Hope (memoir). A Vision of Hope Media. https://www.avisionofhopebook.com/books/memoir. “It’s why I choose to have Faith… Faith that if I stay connected to myself, to others, and to my Higher Power”; AA meetings at a church breaking down the Big Book; Sunday Bible study in prison led by another inmate; treatment programs; released with no job, no money, and no resources.
- Minnesota Department of Corrections. An Outcome Evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. Research in Brief, February 2012. 366 participants vs 366 matched; 26 percent rearrest, 35 percent reconviction, 40 percent new offense reincarceration; no effect on technical revocations; benefits likely due to mentoring continuum; Prison Fellowship; 30 months; non-Christians may participate.
- National Institute of Justice, CrimeSolutions. Program Profile: InnerChange Freedom Initiative (Minnesota). Rated Promising, one study; mentor matched before release and continuing 12 months after; help with housing and employment.
- National Institute of Justice, CrimeSolutions. Practice Profile: Faith-Based Correctional Interventions. Meta-analysis of 15 studies (Schaefer, Sams, and Lux 2016); rated Ineffective for institutional misconduct and antisocial beliefs; programs from one day to 18 months; common components include church leadership, faith education, spiritual seminars, Bible study, spiritual counseling, and worship services, run by chaplains, volunteers, religious leaders, and prison staff.
- National Institute of Justice. Restorative Justice Symposia Summary. 1998. Restorative justice as a set of principles; repair harm to victims first, then the community; offender responsible for remedying harm and demonstrating change.
- Piper D, Trombley JR. A Restorative Approach to Faith-Based Reentry. Cognella Academic Publishing. ISBN 9781793520333.