Many have probably heard that, according to a scientific study, prisoners who go through Charles Colson's InnerChange program have a lower recidivism rate. This is a religious program consisting of intensive prayer, counseling, and religious evangelization. Conservative Christians have seized upon this as proof that the government should fund religious programs because "they work." Or do they?

Mark A.R. Kleiman has an article in Slate where he explains, in some detail, that the truth is very different. He is cautious to suggest that this isn’t likely a case of lying, but the deliberate shading of results by the authors is not far off of lying, while the failure of others to read the study closely is not far short of incompetence.

The basic problem is that not all of the results were reported in the news. Only 75 of the original 177 inmates constituted the group that was so successful. The ones that didn’t “complete” the program... were ignored. This is called “selection bias,” “creaming,” “cherry picking,” and “cooking the books.” It’s simply not honest.

InnerChange started with 177 volunteer prisoners but only 75 of them “graduated.” Graduation involved sticking with the program, not only in prison but after release. No one counted as a graduate, for example, unless he got a job. Naturally, the graduates did better than the control group. Anything that selects out from a group of ex-inmates those who hold jobs is going to look like a miracle cure, because getting a job is among the very best predictors of staying out of trouble. And inmates who stick with a demanding program of self-improvement through 16 months probably have more inner resources, and a stronger determination to turn their lives around, than the average inmate.

The InnerChange cheerleaders simply ignored the other 102 participants who dropped out, were kicked out, or got early parole and didn’t finish. Naturally, the non-graduates did worse than the control group. If you select out the winners, you leave mostly losers.

What we have here from those who have latched on to the study is that they are using faith as a basis for belief in the efficacy of faith-based programs. Somehow that seems oddly appropriate — and it's also consistent with how conservative Christians approach a myriad of other policies enacted by the Bush administration, like invading Iraq, cutting funding for international contraceptive programs, and so forth.

Unfortunately, you can't run a government, a community, or a legal system on "faith." You have to rely on evidence, logic, and reason — in short, you have to keep your eyes on reality as it actually is, not as you wish it would be. The former is the hallmark of being part of the "reality based community" whereas the latter is the hallmark of being part of the "faith based community." It's a pity that the American government is being run by people who put more stock into faith and fantasy than reality and evidence.

 

Separation of Church & State:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Secularism 101
• What is the Separation of Church and State?
• Religion's Place in the Public Square
• Myths About Church/State Separation
• Church and State News
• Church & State Polls
• Faith-Based Programs