The Seven Steps Program: a Convict Self-Help Movement

• DOI: 10.1177/003288556604600204
• Date: 01 October 1966
• Author: Bertram Spiller
• Published date: 01 October 1966
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE SEVEN STEPS PROGRAM: A CONVICT
SELF-HELP MOVEMENT *
BERTRAM SPILLER1
* The writer wishes to acknowledge the generous financial assistance from
the Washburn University Research Fund which made this study possible.
IN THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES there has been an increasing
demand on the part of the public and among correctionally oriented
people for a decrease in the high recidivism rate of convicts. These
rates vary considerably according to the ofhcial figures of the state parole
boards. For example, Iowa had a rate of 31.4% for 1963.~ This is
based on 493 men paroled and 155 violators returned. California, on
the other hand, reports a rate of only 10.7 % of male felon parolees
returned to prison for technical violations of parole or for new offenses.~
3
The almost equally populous state of New York had a total of 6,361
parolees in 1965 and 2,185 returnees for a rate of 34.3 % .~
4
Georgia
had a total of 1,795 convicts released on parole or on conditional release
for fiscal year 1964 and 274 violators for a rate of 15.2%.’’’ On the
other hand, Montana had a rate for the period of 1956 to 1962 of
24.1 %, based on 2,249 male felons released on parole and 542 return-
ees for technical violations or new offenses.&dquo;
Kansas had a rate of
37.2% in fiscal year 1965 based on 417 parole releases and 155 re-
turnees to the state penitentiary
It should be readily apparent that these figures are not strictly
comparable. Each state has different policies of parole and parole vio-
lation which may be more or less lenient than others. These policies
1 The writer is grateful to the Kansas Board of Probation and Parole for
making available its figures; to Charles McAtee, Director of Kansas Penal Insti-
tutions for background information; and to the members of the Topeka Seventh
Step Club and the Lansing Penitentiary Pre-Release Committee for giving gener-
ously of their time and allowing the writer to observe their sessions.
2
Walter A. Lunden, The lowa Parole System (Ames, Iowa: The Art Press,
1964), p. 59.
3
Department of Corrections, Analysis of the Budget Bill of the State of Cali-
fornia for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967, p. 134.
4
Board of Parole and the Division of Parole of the Executive Department,
State of New York, Facts and Figures (January 1. 1965 to December 31, 1965),
pp. 24-27.
5
State Board of Corrections, State of Georgia, Annual Report to the Governor
and General Assembly, July 1, 1964-June 30, 1965, p. 74.
6
Board of Pardons, State of Montana, Fourth Biennal Report (November 1,
1956 to October 31, 1962), p. 5.
7
Figures obtained from the Kansas Probation and Parole Board.
21

---

may vary in time as the composition of the parole board changes, or
as laws change. Some state court systems give excessively long sen-
tences, which may necessitate more lenient parole procedures. Others
may be just the reverse. Consequently, there are differential parole risks
and violations. In addition, few states engage in long range follow-up
studies. Few keep records of recidivism beyond the term of parole. It
is obvious that a follow-up of two or three years beyond parole is a more
accurate measure of effectiveness of a prison and parole system than
records during parole. Most of the above figures are of this latter type.
The most recent scientific effectiveness study is of the federal system.
Glaser found that in 1960 31 % of federal male prisoners who had been
paroled in 1956 were returned to prison for new offenses or parole
violations If one wished to exercise a more rigid interpretation of
&dquo;failure&dquo;, the figure could be increased to 48% by adding individuals
who had committed misdemeanors, appeared in court on felony charges,
received nonprison sentences for felony-like offenses, etc. Inasmuch as
the federal prison and parole system is probably one of the better ones,
and since Glaser’s study was more comprehensive than the state figures
cited above, it follows that the real recidivision rates of the above-
mentioned states are probably higher than the figures quoted. There
is obviously room for improvement in all systems.
There is general agreement that there is extremely little &dquo;treatment&dquo;
or rehabilitation taking place in our penal systems. If we accept Gib-
bons’ definition of treatment as that which is &dquo;restricted to those en-
deavors specifically directed to the goal of controlled change or attitude
modification,&dquo; then most prisons and reformatories are engaging in a
bare minimum of treatment.‘’ It is almost axiomatic in corrections that
our penal establishments are primarily custodial, rather than reforma-
tive. It is all the more remarkable, then, that one of the more interest-
ing innovations in corrections should be initiated, organized, and run
primarily by convicts and ex-convicts. This is the pre-release class of
the Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, and the Seventh Step
Foundation.
The Background
These programs began in November, 1963, when Bill Sands, a
Kansas City night club entertainer at the time, wished to establish some
kind of convict-organized rehabilitative program at Lansing Peniten-
tiary. He became friendly with Jim Emerson, a Kansas City newspaper-
8
Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System (Indian-
apolis : Bobbs-Merrill, 1964), p. 20.
9
Don C. Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker: The Treatment of Delinquents
and...