In recent years, a new wave of faith-based programming known as “God Pods” has made its way into U.S. prisons. Immersing inmates in intensive Christian ministries, these privately funded programs threaten religious freedom within public prisons. Unlike traditional prison chaplaincies legally required to maintain religious neutrality, God Pods train and deploy Inmate Field Ministers (IFMs) — credentialing incarcerated individuals into Christian ministry and the proselytizing of fellow prisoners.
Now present in more than 20 states, God Pods are shifting the delivery of religious education within prisons. Previously, such programs were struck down as unconstitutional when found to be funded by taxpayer dollars. Today, private evangelical organizations bankroll these efforts, avoiding government regulation while still operating inside public institutions. Although presented as cost-effective solutions to the shortage of prison chaplains, God Pods touch on fundamental issues of religious liberty and church-state separation.
At the core of this shift is the role of IFMs. Often recent converts, IFMs, trained in religious housing units, spread Christian doctrine within the prison system. Proponents argue that the program aids rehabilitation and improves inmate behavior. Nonetheless, ethical and legal issues are profound: Few IFMs are academically trained in theology, and, by formally acting in a religious capacity within state prisons, their activities raise serious concerns about the government’s endorsement of a specific religious tradition.
Public chaplains are required to hold advanced degrees and facilitate services for all faiths; IFMs are often trained through unaccredited Christian programs and focus exclusively on promoting evangelical Christianity. The shift to IFMs has the potential to create coercive environments where prisoners may feel pressured to convert or participate in Christian services in return for better treatment or improved living conditions. This imbalance is especially troubling in prisons, where inmates already have limited freedom and control over their daily lives.
The rise of God Pods also raises critical constitutional questions. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits government from endorsing or promoting any religion. Yet when IFMs carry out religious work inside prisons, the state runs the risk of effectively establishing Christianity as a preferred religion within its correctional institutions. Worse, by explicitly equating religious conversion with rehabilitation, these programs suggest that non-Christian inmates may be at a disadvantage.
Additionally, IFMs threaten the religious freedoms of minority faith and non-religious inmates. In facilities where God Pods dominate, inmates of other faith traditions may find it harder to access religious resources or may feel marginalized in an environment that prioritizes evangelical Christian doctrine. This undermines the principle that prisons should accommodate the diverse needs of all incarcerated citizens, not just those of the dominant faith.
The potential coercion that these programs introduce is also a concern. When inmates perceive participation in religious programming as a pathway to better treatment or privileges, the line between voluntary religious participation and coercion becomes blurry. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that government actions, even those that indirectly pressure individuals to conform to religious practices, violate the Establishment Clause.
In addition, IFMs raise concerns about the “government speech” doctrine: By authorizing IFMs to minister within their walls, state prisons may inadvertently be endorsing the religious messages these inmates convey, raising questions about state-sponsored religion. This blending of church and state threatens the constitutional safeguards designed to keep these institutions separate.
Maintaining neutrality of religious programming in prisons is a must. Faith-based programs can offer genuine benefits to inmates, but must remain voluntary and free from state interference or endorsement. Public chaplaincy, with its commitment to religious pluralism, must be restored and adequately funded to ensure that inmates of all faiths have equal access to spiritual resources. In addition, prisons must be careful not to delegate religious authority to programs prioritizing a particular religious tradition, especially when such delegation risks turning prisons into spaces of religious coercion.
Ultimately, the mission of prisons is to provide rehabilitation without infringing upon the personal beliefs of those in custody. Like all citizens, inmates are entitled to their own religious views, free from pressure or coercion. As faith-based programs continue to expand, they must be implemented in ways respectful of these rights and adhering to the constitutional principle of religious freedom.
Michael Hallett is a professor of criminology at the University of North Florida. He has spent two decades studying faith-based programs in U.S. prisons. (This article represents the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of Americans United.)