Fact Sheet Regarding Iowa Decision
On June 2, 2006, Judge Robert Pratt of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa issued his Opinion in Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, et al. v. Prison Fellowship
Ministries, Inc. after a three-week bench trial. The Court analyzed
the onstitutionality of the contract between the Iowa Department
of Corrections (“DOC”) and the innerChange Freedom Initiative, Inc.
(“IFI”) for a values based, pre-release prison treatment program.
The Court held that while the DOC had a primarily secular purpose when contracting with IFI, that is, the reduction of recidivism, the contract advances religion in its primary effect and fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. As a result, the Court declared the contract to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined further operation of the Program within the Iowa DOC.
Additionally, the Court ordered that IFI repay to Iowa all of the monies it has received as payment for its services in operating the Program since the commencement of the contractual relationship between IFI and the Iowa DOC.
(1) The Court’s decision takes away an effective tool for prison administrators to deal with rising recidivism rates, which is a major societal problem.
The Court not only admitted that recidivism is a huge problem in Iowa (as it is throughout the country), it also held that the primary purpose of the Iowa DOC’s contract with IFI was to combat the recidivism problem, not to infuse the Iowa prison system with religion. Despite this holding, the Court enjoined the Program from further operation. There is no dispute that the IFI Program is a quality program, which is why prison officials in several states have brought the Program to their prison system. There is also no dispute that 60 percent of the funds used in the program were privately donated. The 40 percent of the funds that come from the State coffers are only used for the non-sectarian aspects of the program. Moreover, independent studies by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that the program is an effective tool in reducing recidivism. Despite this, the Court declared the Program unconstitutional.
(2) The Court’s decision effectively prohibits people of faith from helping to solve this societal problem.
The decision calls into question whether a treatment provider affiliated with any religion may apply for or conduct an in-prison treatment program. This is unfortunate, as there is no other organization - sectarian or not - that offers such comprehensive and intensive treatment and educational opportunities for inmates.
(3) The opinion fails to recognize the fact that enrollment in the program is completely voluntary.
Every single inmate who testified at trial admitted that he was not coerced into enrolling in the program. Inmates are only exposed to the religious aspects of the program as a result of their voluntary choice. Moreover, inmates who enroll in the program know about and are fully informed about its religious aspects before enrolling. Inmates can also leave the program at any time without penalty.
(4) There is no evidence that inmates are coerced into enrolling into the IFI Program.
The Court concluded that IFI coerces inmates to convert to Christianity simply because of the quality of the program’s offerings to the inmates. Essentially, the Court penalizes the IFI Program because it is a quality program and offers inmates the tools they need to succeed when they are released from prison. The Opinion, despite the Court’s attempted rationalizations, creates a “race to the bottom.” The Court relied on expert testimony in holding that inmates are coerced into enrolling, but the expert based his conclusions on his interviews with only six plaintiff inmates hand-picked by Plaintiff’s counsel. Further, the Court ignored significant testimony (even from Plaintiffs’ own witnesses) that some inmates did not want to enroll in the program because of the strict schedule and rules.
(5) IFI does not require inmates to convert to Christianity to enroll, progress, or graduate from the program.
Perhaps most disturbing about Judge Pratt’s decision is the gross oversimplification of evangelical Christians and evangelical Christianity. The Court relied heavily on purported expert testimony that Evangelical Christians by definition must seek to convert others and any action they take must be construed to that end. Yet this expert has never set foot in an IFI classroom to see if this is true, or to determine how IFI uses its curriculum in class. Moreover, it is disingenuous to claim that all Evangelicals try to convert others, especially since every IFI witness testified that they did not try to convert inmates to Christianity. The Court also ignored evidence that IFI makes accommodations for non-Christian inmates, allowing them to attend services of their choice, observe Ramadan, and attend sweat lodge ceremonies, in addition to the fact that non-Christian inmates have graduated from the IFI Program without converting to Christianity.
(6) The Court’s reliance on the “pervasively sectarian” test is out-oftouch with current Establishment Clause law.
According to the judge, the simple fact that IFI is a pervasively sectarian organization forecloses its receipt of state funds. At least three (probably five) justices on the United States Supreme Court, however, have rejected this principle, stating that it was “born of bigotry.” It is the general consensus among the circuits that this is no longer good law.
(7) The Court improperly focused on events that happened in 1999/2000 instead of focusing on how the program is run today.
The Court admitted that IFI has done a good job disciplining volunteers/staff who act inappropriately, yet seized on dated, inadmissible hearsay testimony from inmates to paint a distorted view of the IFI Program to support its conclusions of unconstitutionality.
(8) The Court’s ruling on recoupment is unprecedented and lacks any factual basis.
The Court ignored the fact that IFI has been providing services to Iowa and its inmates since 1999, under a valid contract arrived at through a competitive bid process, with positive results. The State of Iowa did not ask for these funds back. In fact, all of the DOC witnesses asked agreed that IFI has earned the money that it has received from Iowa and that it has been money well spent. IFI still believes that its program conforms with the Constitution and the Establishment Clause as they are currently interpreted. As the Supreme Court has recognized, and is evident from every stage of this litigation including the 140 page Opinion on the merits of this case, this area of the law is unsettled and nuanced, which clearly contradicts the Court’s conclusion that IFI and the State of Iowa should have known that their contract violated the law.
The Court held that while the DOC had a primarily secular purpose when contracting with IFI, that is, the reduction of recidivism, the contract advances religion in its primary effect and fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. As a result, the Court declared the contract to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined further operation of the Program within the Iowa DOC.
Additionally, the Court ordered that IFI repay to Iowa all of the monies it has received as payment for its services in operating the Program since the commencement of the contractual relationship between IFI and the Iowa DOC.
(1) The Court’s decision takes away an effective tool for prison administrators to deal with rising recidivism rates, which is a major societal problem.
The Court not only admitted that recidivism is a huge problem in Iowa (as it is throughout the country), it also held that the primary purpose of the Iowa DOC’s contract with IFI was to combat the recidivism problem, not to infuse the Iowa prison system with religion. Despite this holding, the Court enjoined the Program from further operation. There is no dispute that the IFI Program is a quality program, which is why prison officials in several states have brought the Program to their prison system. There is also no dispute that 60 percent of the funds used in the program were privately donated. The 40 percent of the funds that come from the State coffers are only used for the non-sectarian aspects of the program. Moreover, independent studies by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that the program is an effective tool in reducing recidivism. Despite this, the Court declared the Program unconstitutional.
(2) The Court’s decision effectively prohibits people of faith from helping to solve this societal problem.
The decision calls into question whether a treatment provider affiliated with any religion may apply for or conduct an in-prison treatment program. This is unfortunate, as there is no other organization - sectarian or not - that offers such comprehensive and intensive treatment and educational opportunities for inmates.
(3) The opinion fails to recognize the fact that enrollment in the program is completely voluntary.
Every single inmate who testified at trial admitted that he was not coerced into enrolling in the program. Inmates are only exposed to the religious aspects of the program as a result of their voluntary choice. Moreover, inmates who enroll in the program know about and are fully informed about its religious aspects before enrolling. Inmates can also leave the program at any time without penalty.
(4) There is no evidence that inmates are coerced into enrolling into the IFI Program.
The Court concluded that IFI coerces inmates to convert to Christianity simply because of the quality of the program’s offerings to the inmates. Essentially, the Court penalizes the IFI Program because it is a quality program and offers inmates the tools they need to succeed when they are released from prison. The Opinion, despite the Court’s attempted rationalizations, creates a “race to the bottom.” The Court relied on expert testimony in holding that inmates are coerced into enrolling, but the expert based his conclusions on his interviews with only six plaintiff inmates hand-picked by Plaintiff’s counsel. Further, the Court ignored significant testimony (even from Plaintiffs’ own witnesses) that some inmates did not want to enroll in the program because of the strict schedule and rules.
(5) IFI does not require inmates to convert to Christianity to enroll, progress, or graduate from the program.
Perhaps most disturbing about Judge Pratt’s decision is the gross oversimplification of evangelical Christians and evangelical Christianity. The Court relied heavily on purported expert testimony that Evangelical Christians by definition must seek to convert others and any action they take must be construed to that end. Yet this expert has never set foot in an IFI classroom to see if this is true, or to determine how IFI uses its curriculum in class. Moreover, it is disingenuous to claim that all Evangelicals try to convert others, especially since every IFI witness testified that they did not try to convert inmates to Christianity. The Court also ignored evidence that IFI makes accommodations for non-Christian inmates, allowing them to attend services of their choice, observe Ramadan, and attend sweat lodge ceremonies, in addition to the fact that non-Christian inmates have graduated from the IFI Program without converting to Christianity.
(6) The Court’s reliance on the “pervasively sectarian” test is out-oftouch with current Establishment Clause law.
According to the judge, the simple fact that IFI is a pervasively sectarian organization forecloses its receipt of state funds. At least three (probably five) justices on the United States Supreme Court, however, have rejected this principle, stating that it was “born of bigotry.” It is the general consensus among the circuits that this is no longer good law.
(7) The Court improperly focused on events that happened in 1999/2000 instead of focusing on how the program is run today.
The Court admitted that IFI has done a good job disciplining volunteers/staff who act inappropriately, yet seized on dated, inadmissible hearsay testimony from inmates to paint a distorted view of the IFI Program to support its conclusions of unconstitutionality.
(8) The Court’s ruling on recoupment is unprecedented and lacks any factual basis.
The Court ignored the fact that IFI has been providing services to Iowa and its inmates since 1999, under a valid contract arrived at through a competitive bid process, with positive results. The State of Iowa did not ask for these funds back. In fact, all of the DOC witnesses asked agreed that IFI has earned the money that it has received from Iowa and that it has been money well spent. IFI still believes that its program conforms with the Constitution and the Establishment Clause as they are currently interpreted. As the Supreme Court has recognized, and is evident from every stage of this litigation including the 140 page Opinion on the merits of this case, this area of the law is unsettled and nuanced, which clearly contradicts the Court’s conclusion that IFI and the State of Iowa should have known that their contract violated the law.