What the heck is purposeful incarceration?

I sometimes receive letters from the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) advising me that an inmate has completed a Recovery While Incarcerated (RWI) program and is therefore eligible for sentence modification via the Purposeful Incarceration (PI) program. These have raised several questions for me.

I had some familiarity with PI prior to becoming judge. Yet, it was never clear to me how the program worked, whether it worked, or how long a person would be in treatment. I saw the recommendations for length of program shrink from two-years to 90-days or less. I have never seen any data on whether the program reduces recidivism.

To become less confused about PI, I decided to do some research. I attempted to look up the statute that created it. There is no authorizing statute. The legislature played no role.

I assumed then it must have been created by a court rule. Nothing in the court rules.

I can find no authority creating PI. The IDOC website on their FAQ page, the only source of information on the web about PI aside from advertisements on defense attorney websites, says it is a “partnership” between the IDOC and the courts. How can a procedural right in a criminal case be created with nothing authorizing it?

Despite no authorizing statute or rule, PI purports to create a defendant’s right to have a judge consider sentence modification. This is done by using certain language prescribed by the IDOC. Of course, the parties can always contract a right to modification in plea negotiations. Judges also have inherent authority to build modifications into sentencing orders. However, according to the FAQ page, if the judge uses the prescribed PI language in a sentencing order, then he or she must consider sentence modification for purposes of PI. Based on what authority must a judge do this?

Indiana Code 35-38-1-17 already provides a right to request sentence modification. Does this mean that a person sentenced with the PI language now has two guaranteed rights to seek modification? Alternatively does the PI modification take the place of or run concurrently with the statutory right to modify? If PI does not confer two separate rights, then what function does it serve?

Many judges, I believe, think that the only way for a defendant to receive treatment in the IDOC is if the PI language is in the judgment. This is not the case. Every inmate entering the IDOC is screened for substance abuse issues and, if screened in, receives treatment through RWI whether or not PI is ordered.

If inmates receive treatment no matter what, and the parties and the judges have inherent authority to build in modifications, and there is already a statute granting modification rights, then why was PI created at all? Why is the prescribed language and the notation in the abstract of judgement necessary? 

All of this remains confusing in large part because PI was not created by statute in a deliberative process. What the heck is purposeful incarceration? It is what happens when public policy is made by FAQ page.