Correctional Best Practices: Directors` Perspectives

Transcription

Association of
State
Correctional
Administrators
Correctional Best Practices:
Directors’ Perspectives
An ASCA Publication•Middletown, CT•August 2000
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Reginald A. Wilkinson
ii
Forward
Joseph D. Lehman
Chapter I
Management
Chapter II
Security
45
Chapter III
Rehabilitation and Programming
55
Chapter IV
Employee Readiness and Community Service
95
Chapter V
Victim Impact
139
Chapter VI
Inmate Family Focus
153
Chapter VII
Community and Transitional Services
177
Chapter VIII
Technological Advances
229
Chapter IX
Offender Behavior and Accountability
247
ASCA History
Camille and George Camp
273
Afterwards
277
iii
1
Addendum
ASCA Committee Members
ASCA Regional Map
ASCA DOC’s with Parole/Probation Responsibilities
ASCA Michael Francke Award Recipients
281
Correctional Resource Guide
297
i
Acknowledgements
Editor and Best Practices Committee Chair
To see a project such as this one through to completion, it takes a lot of effort on behalf of a number of
people. I would like to recognize the persons involved.
I'd like to first recognize ASCA President Joe Lehman for sharing the vision that identifying and sharing
"best practices" is now a necessity for the corrections business, and for charging ASCA's Best Practices
Committee with developing this publication.
Thanks to Best Practices Committee members John Fleming (ONT), Elaine Little (ND), and Bill Martin
(MI) for their great ideas and insight into making this project a successful one.
I tip my hat to each of the ASCA member Directors, Commissioners, and Secretaries and their staffs who
took time out of their busy schedules to prepare the ensuing submissions. Truly they represent the excellence that personifies this profession.
Thanks to George and Camille Camp for their continued leadership as the Executive Directors of ASCA
and for their staff input into this assignment. A very special "thank you" to the Assistant Editor of this publication, Clare Smith, for her expertise and the dozens of hours of work she devoted to making this a monograph that denotes "quality."
I want to thank staff of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for their contributions as
well. Tessa Unwin, Assistant Editor, spent many hours shepherding this project to completion. I also want
to thank Jennifer Hale and Brian Niceswanger for their assistance. The staff of the Ohio Prison Industries,
particularly Larry Krist, are deserving of our appreciation for the actual printing of this book.
ii
Forward
Joseph D. Lehman
President
It is fitting that the Association of State Correctional Administrators would take on this task, that is, the
publication of a "Correctional Best Practices: Directors' Perspective" monograph.
The association has long been a forum in which Directors have shared and learned from each other. This
endeavor is a logical extension of that obligation. Additionally, it does two things. First, it provides a
means of documenting and transmitting the lessons learned to a broader audience. In that respect it is
hoped that it will be a catalyst in bringing about improvements in our profession. Secondly, it is a visible
embodiment of the association and its members' dedication to a "What Works" philosophy. That is, amid
the tremendous tendency to politicize what we do in corrections, there is a pledge to always ferret out
"What Works and What Doesn't" in this complex world of crime control and public safety.
No matter how you look at it, putting together such a monograph is hard work. It takes the dedication,
effort, and energy of association members whose plates are already overflowing with work. Actually, what
it takes is zeal. A recognition for how important this work of ours is and a spirit and passion for wanting
to make it even better. We owe a debt of gratitude to those agencies that share this passion and have submitted their ideas, as well as their organizations' proposed and operating programs for consideration. Their
work is adequate testimony to the commitment to the excellent and prideful work that corrections professionals do in this country.
Last but not least, endeavors of this nature take leadership. In this instance the leadership has come from
the chair of the Best Practices Committee, Reginald A. Wilkinson of Ohio, and from his committee members John Fleming (ONT), Elaine Little (ND) and Bill Martin (MI). To say this is a passion of Reggie's
would be an understatement. We have all benefited from his vision of this project, from his willingness to
carry the load, and from his commitment to the collaboration that it entails.
When all is said and done, our hope is that in reading about these best practices you will be inspired or
otherwise energized to create a dialogue about what your best practices are or could be in your agency. We
would encourage you to learn from what we have to share, to use what you can, and most importantly, to
ask you - Director - to share what you are doing with us in the future.
iii
Chapter 1
Management
1
2
Colorado’s Youthful Offender System
Colorado Department of Corrections
John W. Suthers, Executive Director
Overview
The system grew out of what was known in Denver as the "summer of violence." In 1993, as a result of
a number of highly publicized crimes and the spread of street gang activity to middle class neighborhoods,
the state legislature held a special session called by Governor Romer. Among its actions was the creation
of the Youthful Offender System (YOS). Its goals and operations are spelled out in Senate Bill 93S-9. The
program’s intent is to divert young offenders who have been charged as adults with violent and weaponsinvolved crimes. It offers them a program that lies between the juvenile system and prison. The hope is
that it will return them to society changed for the better. Much of the effort, which lasts two to six years,
always with the threat of adult prison in the background, is specifically aimed at substituting accepted
norms for gang behavior.
Pending the opening of a permanent home in Pueblo, in southern Colorado, the system was housed at the
Department of Corrections’(CDOC) Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC). This is adjacent
to the Denver County Jail with walls topped with barbered wire, guard towers, a small exercise yard and
cells built in tiers. To augment the 96-bed DRDC facility, four contract facilities were utilized to program
overflow male and all female offenders. These facilities were operated by Youth Services International
and were located at Estherville, Iowa (females only); Tarkio, Missouri (males only); Chamberlain, South
Dakota (males and females) and Springfield, South Dakota (males only).
During the 1994 legislative session, the General Assembly appropriated $25,249,500 for a permanent 300bed facility to be located on the grounds of the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (CMHI-P). The
CDOC sought and received legislative approval to renovate existing vacant buildings on the campus,
rather than build a totally new YOS campus. Such efforts represented not only savings for the taxpayer,
Management
3
Colorado’s Youthful Offender System
but also provided a "college campus" atmosphere conducive to the program goals. In July 1998, the
Department opened the new facility. House Bill 97-1244 appropriated $11,085,824 for an additional 180
beds, as well as program space additions.
Prior to the 1999 Legislative Session both Class 1 and 2 felons were excluded from YOS. During the 1999
Session, the General Assembly extended YOS’ eligibility to include some juveniles convicted of Class 2
felonies. In addition, statutes excluded offenders convicted of sexual offenses. The District Attorney who
direct files the case in district court may also charge juveniles, if the juvenile meets specific age and
offense criteria. The direct filed juveniles, who are at least fourteen years of age and less than eighteen
years old at the time of offense, are less than nineteen years of age at time of sentencing, and are convicted of certain offenses, are eligible to be sentenced to the Youthful Offender System. The court must first
impose a sentence to prison, which is then suspended, conditional upon completion of the sentence to
YOS. The YOS sentence imposed must be at least two years but no more than six years, except for sentencing of a Class 2 felony, which may be up to seven years in length.
The following offenses are eligible for sentencing to YOS: Class 2 felonies, which are not the result of a
plea agreement where a Class 1 felony was charged. Defined crimes of violence in C.R.S. 16-11-309
including crimes against an at-risk adult or at-risk juvenile, first or second degree assault, kidnapping,
aggravated robbery, first degree arson, first degree burglary, escape and criminal extortion. Felony crimes
are defined as the use of or possession of, and threatened use of a deadly weapon, vehicular homicide,
vehicular assault, and arson. Criminal attempt, conspiracy, solicitation or complicity to any of the offenses listed are also crimes eligible for YOS sentencing. Youthful offenders with a history of delinquent acts,
which would constitute a felony, and habitual juvenile offenders as defined in C.R.S. 19-1-103, are specifically identified in the statute as eligible for YOS.
YOS Redirection Program
The Youthful Offender System is organizationally located within the Department of Corrections. Two
agencies within the department--YOS Institutional and the Division of Community Corrections--share
responsibility for administering the program. By Statute YOS consists of four distinct components: Intake,
Diagnostic, Orientation (IDO); Phase I (Institutional), Phase II (Transition), and Phase III (Community).
Thus, The Youthful Offender System consists of four phases, which are designed to provide a continuum
of core programs and specialized services tailored to individual needs. The four phases are briefly
described below.
Intake, Diagnostic and Orientation
Trained professionals are required to use standardized assessment instruments in evaluating YOS offenders committed to the program. Use of standardized testing is supplemented by a focused interview with
the offender, to evaluate each of the nine key areas (gang involvement, drug use and dependency, crime
related to drug use, history of treatment, medical and mental health, recent violent or aggressive behavior,
educational aptitude, work history, social, and family history). The focused interview is structured to verify or elaborate responses provided during testing, and to examine inconsistencies observed in these programs.
All offenders participate in intense orientation activities during the first month in the intake unit. These
activities provide basic information regarding program rules, regulations, group behavioral norms, meth-
4
Management
John W. Suthers
ods of confrontation, sanctions, responsibilities to attend program activities, confidentiality of information,
criteria for termination, and criteria for successful completion of the program. Orientation includes a thorough discussion of the full scope of program activities to occur in all phases of the program. Throughout
the first four weeks, when not involved in orientation or diagnostic activities, the YOS offender is involved
in highly regimented physical activities (modified military type induction drill and ceremony.
Phase I
Youth committed to YOS are involved in intensive residential programming in a modified therapeutic
community (positive peer culture) located at a secure facility for eight months to six years, depending upon
their determinate sentence and the controlling statutory authority at the time of sentencing. The core element of Phase I is cognitive education, an academic and vocational education curriculum leading to a high
school diploma followed by a post secondary curriculum.
Phase II
Three months of job development, pre-vocational experiences and life skills education are offered as a prerelease transition. The Phase II, prerelease, transition activities continue to provide a full range of maintenance programming supporting Phase I, YOS redirection programs. This twenty-four hour custody residential program provides close supervision of all residents to ensure the safety and security of staff, residents, and the community. Staff maintains direct line of sight supervision of the offenders at all times
Phase III
This phase involves intensive community supervision with associated programs that gradually decrease in
supervision intensity as a reward for offenders as they respond positively to community release and
become productively established in the community. Under SB994-201, this phase is mandated for threeto-nine months for each YOS offender successfully completing Phases I and II. Under HB 996-1128,
Phase III is mandated for nine-to-twelve months.
Conclusion
The Colorado Department of Corrections defines recidivism as the return to prison in Colorado for either
new criminal activity or technical violations of parole, probation or non-departmental community placement within three years of release. From fiscal year (FY) 1995 through 1999, the Youthful Offender
System only had seventeen (17) offenders out of a total of one hundred-forty (140) offenders, who completed their YOS sentences, and who were subsequently sentenced to the Department of Corrections as
adults. Thus, the percent of offenders’ recidivating was 12.1%. The year-to-year recidivism rate follows.
In FY 1995–1996, seven (7) offenders were released from their sentences, and two (2) were returned to
the CDOC; thus, the percent of recidivism was 28.6%. In FY 1996–1997, nineteen (19) offenders were
released from their sentences, five (5) were returned; thus, the percent of recidivism was 26.3%. In FY
1997-1998 forty-eight (48) offenders were released from their sentence, six (6) were returned; thus, the
percent of recidivism was 12.5%. In FY 1998-1999, sixty-six (66) offenders were released from their sentences, four (4) were returned; thus, the recidivism rate was 6.1%.
The greatest percentage (28.6%) of youthful offenders who discharged their YOS sentence, and who were
Management
5
later sentenced to CDOC as adults was in FY 1995-1996, and steadily decreased through FY 1998-1999
(6.1%), as the number of releases dramatically increased within this time frame.
6
Management
Objective Classification System
Delaware Department of Correction
Stan Taylor, Commissioner
Brief Historical Perspective
The development of fair, objective and manageable offender classification systems closely parallels the
evolution of the nation’s correctional philosophy. In the early 1800s, correction focused on retribution and
punishment and classification was based primarily on offense type. Offenders were grouped for the purpose of determining the "appropriate" punishment and were housed in comparable settings and occupied
their time in a similar manner.
In the latter part of the 19th century, there was a shift towards reform and rehabilitation. By virtue of their
arrest and conviction, offenders were deemed deficient in many areas, including personal growth and survival skills. The task of classification during this period was to identify existing deficiencies and take corrective action (the "medical" model). This trend lost favor due to public frustration with rising crime rates,
gratuitous violence and the perceived failure of treatment programs.
Today, correctional philosophy in many, if not most, jurisdictions is increasingly based on a
retributive/punishment or "just desserts" view of handling offenders. Previous assumptions regarding the
effectiveness of "rehabilitation" have been increasingly challenged. Commensurately, there has also been
more litigation regarding inappropriate use of criteria for determining how offenders are housed and when
and where they are permitted to participate in treatment oriented programs. Both of these developments,
along with all the publicity concerning national prison and jail overcrowding, led to a hard look at "traditional" classification strategies.
Specifically, corrections classification systems have moved away from "subjective" models to "objective"
systems. Subjective models tend to rely on informal criteria that often lead to inconsistency and error in
Management
7
decision making. Conversely, objective systems depend on a narrow set of well-defined legal factors (e.g.,
severity of current offense and prior criminal convictions) and risk indicators (e.g., bail status and escape
history). Included also are relevant personal characteristics (e.g., age, marital status). These items are
weighted and assigned differential values within a well defined instrument that is then used to assess an
offender’s level of risk and program need(s). Objective systems place greater emphasis on fairness and
consistency. An added component is adaptation for any special requirements related to the female offender. I recommend use of the term "Objective Classification System" when describing the process.
Risk/needs assessment is considered elemental to, or an underlying component of, the system.
In view of this shift in thinking, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) funded a project and began
work in 1986 to devise an objective classification system that would meet these unique requirements and
be readily adaptable to institutions of all sizes. The project resulted in field-testing of the point system
approach. Testing entailed ongoing monitoring of the classification system at designated sites and assessment of its effectiveness. Based on field-test results, instruments were fine-tuned to meet specific institution needs. Notably, the instrument developed for use in Delaware has been refined to meet requirements
of offenders in this state, as a result of validity testing.
Since 1990, NIC has sponsored a technical assistance program, free to states, to help jail and prison administrators implement objective classification systems in their jurisdictions. Classification is the "brain" of
the prison system. It provides for systematic, rational decision making on both an individual and system
level.
Individual Level
Classification enhances the ability to make decisions about the level, type and duration of supervision and
services for each person under supervision. The decisions are:
• Equitable;
• Efficient; and
• Defensible in court
System Level
Structured decision-making allows for:
• Better planning of resources, i.e., staff size, number and types of replacement beds and other services to
address needs;
• More efficient use of resources - the most violent offenders are quickly identified and handled accordingly while low and moderate risk offenders are not over supervised, leading to wasted resources; and
• Typically, information gathered and decisions made through this process are better received by courts and
legislators due to the high rate of reliability
Although classification is considered the "brain" of the prison system, it is merely a tool. To ensure it is
an effective tool, Delaware brought in experts to conduct reliability testing: to make sure that different
interviewers with the same client would get approximately the same information; and validity testing: to
determine that the assessment tool actually measures what it is designed to measure. It does not replace
the experience and expertise of the staff.
The objective risk/needs assessment instrument is a tool that enables staff to do what they do best:
8
Management
Stan Taylor
• Make decisions to enhance public safety, and
• Provide the right kinds of supervision and service to persons under our authority.
Simplified Definitions
Risk Assessment: Process of estimating an individual’s likelihood of continued involvement in criminal
behavior based upon an objective evaluation of the individual’s risk.
Needs Assessment: Evaluation of the offender’s status in a series of problem areas: social, emotional,
physical, mental, substance abuse and educational/vocational. The results are used to determine program
and work assignments. Note: This assessment instrument is the mechanism for entering a program and
being assigned to a job. Everyone is required to work unless specifically precluded for verified/written
medical documentation or security reasons. A risk score automatically overrides any inappropriate program and/or work assignment.
Some Benefits of the Objective Classification System
Greater validity, structure and consistency in the decision making and assessment process. Under an
objective classification system:
• Same risk factors used by all decision makers
• Risk factors are weighted according to their predictive ability or competence; greater validity
• Case-by-case decisions are equitable, because of the use of the same factors with the same weights - thus
individuals with similar offense(s), criminal history and needs are assigned to the same or comparable
supervision and interventions.
• Rationale for decisions are explicit and known to all, increasing agency accountability and that of the
offender’s
• Easy to complete and easily automated. Standard instruments provide for quick, efficient and sounder
decisions and increase the consistency of decision making while decreasing the number of staff errors and
misinterpretation of classification policy.
While not specifically listed as a benefit in the literature studied, I consider the fact of the override to be
a benefit as it is the component that accounts for the retention of professional judgement. All objective systems currently in existence incorporate at least some subjective staff judgment, with the override being the
vehicle. The system allows for two types of override, non-discretionary and discretionary. Non-discretionary overrides are those set by formal policy or law and tend to prohibit placement at minimum security. Discretionary overrides reflect the professional judgement of staff and should have a sound basis, not
how staff "feels" about the offender. In general, discretionary overrides should occur in approximately
10% to 15% of all cases. When this range is not achieved or is exceeded, in all probability offenders are
being under-classified or over-classified.
Objective classification ensures that limited resources are allocated efficiently. The most intensive and
intrusive interventions - and thus the most costly - are reserved for the most serious, violent and chronic
offenders. Note: A report prepared by Dr. Jim Austin, stated (in part): "There have been significant
decreases in the extent of over-classification. States have found that the proportion of offenders who rate
classification at minimum or lower custody levels is much higher than previously believed. Most states
found that 25% to 40% of their offenders could be safely housed in minimum. Studies report decrease or
no changes in the rate of escapes and institutional misconduct."
Management
9
Offenders that represent moderate to low risk are supervised and managed accordingly when objective
classification is utilized. While it is not reasonable to expect classification, by itself, to substantially
reduce the level of staffing required, it does allow for better distribution of personnel, in accordance with
supervision requirements of offenders. It assists staff to have a better profile of the "kind" of offender
under surveillance.
Rapid turnover in population necessitates quick decision-making, a condition that tends to add to constrain
or pressure the "traditional" classification system. The use of the abbreviated method that we have adopted lends itself to the need to make expeditious decisions concerning temporary placement of detentioners,
returnees to the system and short-termers (sentenced to up to one day less than one year). It is recognized
that there is limited information typically available during the first few hours or couple of days. The window has been informally widened from 24 hours of admission to 72 hours or three workdays due to the
rapid turnover at SCI. Thus the ultimate goal of screening at that point is to identify any evidence of immediate risk to self or staff if housed in population and/or emergency need.
Objective classification reduces potential for politically embarrassing incidents. Because of their high predictive ability, objective classification instruments are sought and used as a mechanism for avoiding politically explosive incidents (e.g., escapes, new crimes) among high-profile and/or violent offenders by
assuring offenders are appropriately classified.
Pilot Testing
An important step in the implementation of any system is pilot testing. Pilot testing may occur at the
beginning of the implementation of a new system or may be the last task. We opted for the first. For
approximately one year we operated a dual system out of SCI. During this period, a classification employee completed the "old" form on offenders regularly scheduled for classification. At the same time, another employee completed the newly developed instrument on the same offenders. The intent was to determine how well the instrument was working. The pilot testing helped avoid having to make piecemeal
modifications later on to correct problems.
After an initial confidence level had been achieved and recognizing that full validation of this instrument
was beyond the scope of our ability, the Department requested and was granted technical assistance.
Technical Assistance
The first phase involved peer training paid in full by NIC. Two employees from Delaware, the director of
treatment service and the classification officer in charge of the pilot site, trained with practitioners from a
number of state correctional agencies that had recently received assistance through NIC. This provided all
practitioners exposure to national issues through peer discussions facilitated by classification experts. The
program provided a forum for sharing developments in objective prison classification and an opportunity
to broaden the understanding of better practices in prison classification.
During the second phase and for several months the agency was provided with concentrated on-site technical assistance. NIC helped develop a well-organized work plan that is responsive to the needs and level
of sophistication of the agency. The plan focused on achieving a greater understanding of the principles of
objective prison classification systems, the needs of practitioners and correctional agencies and sensitivity to requirements for addressing gender-specific issues.
10
Management
Validation and Reliability Process
Multiple samples were obtained for testing the initial and reclassification forms for female and male
offenders, using offenders sentenced to one year or more. Data was collected for a specific period of time
(those admitted between April 1 and September 30, 1999) for initial classification. To generate a sufficient
sample for reclassification, a random sample of approximately 12% of the active male population incarcerated prior to April 1, 1999 was used. There were 109 females included in this sample. These data were
separated to reflect significant gender differences, e.g., current and prior criminal history, institutional misconduct and sentence lengths.
The analysis focused on the power of the combination of the classification items and custody scales to categorize offenders into custody levels. The delineation of custody levels reflects the offenders’threat to the
safety and security of the institution, staff, other offenders and themselves. A comprehensive report,
including findings and recommendations, has been provided to the Department
In summary, an objective classification system is a comprehensive approach to offender assessment,
addressing their needs for admission through release. Use of the instruments developed is expected to
have a positive impact on the prison system with respect to security, safety, cost efficiency, lifestyle choices and changes made by offenders as well as in litigation.
Management
11
12
Management
Evaluation of Offender Programs
Kansas Department of Corrections
Charles E. Simmons, Secretary
Introduction
Interest in evaluation of program interventions and services has come to the forefront of many corrections
agencies. The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), in continuing efforts to pursue the
Department’s vision of "A Safer Kansas Through Effective Correctional Services," made a major commitment in 1995 to developing a research capability to objectively assess the effectiveness of various
offender programs offered by the Department. In January 1997, KDOC published the first Offender
Programs Evaluation report, and the evaluation has been repeated on an annual basis since that time.
The evaluation is designed to provide a statistical analysis of the effectiveness of the programs provided
to offenders in order to help the agency better respond to questions such as:
• What are we trying to achieve?
• Are we succeeding?
• What standards or measures are we using to determine how well we are doing?
• What objective information are we using to evaluate results?
• Are there more cost-effective ways to achieve the same ends?
Statistically valid answers to these questions will allow KDOC to focus resources on programs that work
well, and modify or eliminate programs with limited impact.
Design and Development
Four years ago, the Department put together a cross-functional team of central office employees who, in
addition to their other responsibilities, were tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of offender program
13
Management
Evaluation of Offender Programs
services and interventions. This group is comprised of participants from the research and planning section
as well as facilities management, community and field services, programs and staff development and computer information systems. The "Program Evaluation Work Group" spends a considerable amount of time
each year assessing the quality of program-related data entered into the KDOC’s centralized computer
database, conducting the evaluation work and communicating with staff and contractors about the importance of timely, accurate and complete information.
While the group has only assessed the correlation between facility-based program participation and several categories of recidivism (e.g., with new sentence, without new sentence, after completion of supervision), future evaluation efforts will also consider experience on post-incarceration supervision. A new
computer application has been developed and implemented for parole and community corrections officers
(the Total Offender Activity Documentation System) allowing for the collection of quantified information
about the progress of supervision of offenders during their time of community supervision. This represents quite a change in business methods for community and field service staff who were accustomed to
documenting supervision activity in the form of traditional paper-file chronological narratives.
Data Collected
In its present form the evaluation reports on sex offender treatment, four types of substance abuse treatment, academic and vocational education, pre-release reintegration and work release. The Offender
Programs Evaluation includes both output and outcome measures for these programs. Some of the output
measures reported per program include total activity, unduplicated participants, slots and utilization rates
and cost per completion. The output measures are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and are reported for a
five-year period. Outcome measures focus on recidivism—which is defined as a return to a KDOC facility with or without a new sentence—and time in community to recidivism or end of follow-up.
Private contractors deliver the sex offender treatment, substance abuse treatment and educational programs, while pre-release reintegration and work release programs are internal operations. Having objective, quantified output and outcome measurements assists KDOC in monitoring contracts and in setting
expected levels of performance for programs.
The set of offenders considered in this pool is quite large (over 12,500 offenders in the FY 1998 report)
and includes offenders who were new commitments (from courts or probation) on or after July 1, 1991 and
who achieved an initial facility release by the end of each fiscal year. The third volume of the report
reported on the July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1998 time period. An evaluation with recidivism tracking of up
to seven years is quite unusual. KDOC anticipates continually expanding this time frame and including
more offenders in the analysis in subsequent annual volumes.
Advantages of Approach
The Department’s method of offender treatment service evaluation is somewhat atypical. Kansas is using
a "top-down" approach while most evaluation is conducted in more of a "bottom-up" fashion. KDOC is
basing analysis on a comparatively large pool of offenders—which now stands at 12,500 offenders and
continues to grow. Furthermore, a measure of return to prison spanning up to seven years is long compared to other studies. Kansas’ approach to evaluating program effectiveness is different from that which
other states or academic institutions are doing. It is much more common, from a scientific standpoint, to
study about 50 offenders during a program, and then track them in the community for 30 or 36 months to
14
Management
Charles E. Simmons
ascertain the effectiveness of program intervention services. While this type of evaluation design is more
common in the research and scientific communities, it does not always apply directly to the business of
corrections.
We operate in a professional environment that changes as laws change. Characteristics of offender populations also change as laws change. An evaluation study of yesterday’s offenders is not always applicable
to today’s populations. Results of a traditionally designed evaluation illustrate that we don’t know if the
program will work on today’s offenders given that the pool of participants has changed over time. By
looking at a much larger group of offenders over a longer follow-up time frame, and by considering the
results of other "bottom-up" evaluations, we leverage our use of many types of data to make decisions
about the type and structure of programs we deliver.
Major Findings
Volume III (FY 1998)—KDOC’s most recent evaluation report—yields the following observations:
• In comparing those who needed a program but didn’t receive it with those who completed a program,
three programs demonstrated large reductions in the rate of recidivism:
• Sex offender treatment shows a recidivism reduction of 47.6%
•Work release shows a recidivism reduction of 46.4%
•Vocational education shows a recidivism reduction of 31.0%.
• Offenders who refuse participation in a program return to the KDOC as condition violators at a higher
rate than program completers or those who were removed from a program through no fault of their own.
This finding is displayed consistently across all examined programs.
•Offenders without exposure to any of the programs in the report spend on average only 5.3 months in
KDOC incarceration while those with exposure to at least one program spend 15.7 months.
• In FY 1998 three programs were utilized in excess of 100% capacity:
• Sex offender treatment (119%)
• Chemical Dependency Recovery Program (124%)
• Pre-release program (110%).
• Cost per completion ranged from a low of $1,097 for one of the substance abuse treatment programs to
a high of $9,040 for the sex offender treatment program. These costs directly relate to length of time to
complete the program (the referenced substance abuse treatment program takes less than two months to
complete whereas sex offender treatment takes 18 months).
Conclusion
Focusing efforts on using quantified, statistical data in making resource-related decisions is good business
practice. Also, the Department constantly has to balance the demand for bed space against the number of
offenders who, for purposes of public safety, must be returned to incarceration following their initial
release. The information presented in the Offender Programs Evaluation assists in making those competing decisions and gives KDOC staff objective data to assist in those processes. Through this research we
have a better understanding and are more accountable for success in meeting goals, in presenting the measures that indicate how well we are doing and in making cost-effective decisions.
Management
15
16
Management
Facility Assessment Program
Massachusetts Department of Correction
Michael T. Maloney, Commissioner
Introduction
In 1992, a facility-auditing program was established as a means of systematically assessing operations and
programs within the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). The program enables the identification and correction of deficiencies, thereby resulting in significant improvements to institutional safety
and control.
Philosophy
The Massachusetts DOC promotes the assessment program and audit process as a valuable management
tool rather than as a negative experience for institutional staff. The agency sees improved institution security and control as the ultimate goal of the audit process.
Purpose of Audits
Audits are conducted on an annual basis and are coordinated by the Director of the Policy Development
and Compliance Unit (PDCU). The purpose of facility audits are as follows:
• To provide assistance to management by recommending solutions to problems
• To ensure conformity with applicable law, regulations, policies and procedures
• To identify weaknesses in internal controls to determine if corrective action is needed prior to being
revealed by the inmate population either through escapes, assaults, disturbances or litigation
• To identify exemplary practices and promote their recognition and replication
• To review past and present performance
• To prevent, detect and report any instances involving mismanagement, waste, abuse or illegal acts.
Management
17
Auditor Standards
Qualifications - The staff assigned to conduct audits must collectively possess adequate professional proficiency in the program areas subject to review. The director of PDCU has the discretion to select auditors.
Independence - Each member of the auditing team must maintain an independent attitude and appearance
so that conclusions and recommendations will be accepted as objective and unbiased.
Due Professional Care - Each auditor must exercise due professional care in conducting the audit and in
preparing related reports. Good professional judgment must be used in assessing the various operations
and programs. Timeliness in reporting and proper handling of sensitive or confidential information is
essential.
Director of the Policy Development and Compliance Unit (PDCU)
As previously mentioned, the director of the PDCU is responsible for coordinating the auditing process
throughout the DOC. Pursuant to that task the director:
• Serves as a reviewing authority for all departmental audits conducted
• Develops and updates the auditing policy and procedures
• Selects auditors based upon their evaluation skills, ability to communicate and knowledge of a given
operation or program area
• Maintains an effective follow-up system to ensure that corrective actions are taken
• Conducts on-site evaluations of auditors
• Provides analysis and feedback to affected parties relating to auditing results; and
• Makes recommendations to the deputy commissioner for improvements in facility operations, departmental policy and the auditing process
Superintendents
The Superintendents' responsibilities include the following:
• Provide full support and cooperation to the auditors including free access to all property, records,
employees and inmates
• Ensure that, barring an emergency, the audit is given priority-one attention for its entire duration
• Ensure that all key staff are available for the duration of an audit. Key staff are those most familiar with,
or responsible for, any given operation or program area. If the primary key staff person is not available,
a secondary key staff person, who is comparably qualified, must be available to answer questions or assist
the auditors
• Provide timely initiation and completion of appropriate corrective actions
Audit
Audits consist of a complete examination of numerous components of a facility's operations or programs.
Four or more auditors conduct each audit. The chairperson of the audit team shall ensure that:
• The audit is conducted in accordance with policy and procedure
• All findings and recommendations are presented in a written report to senior management
• Auditors receive sufficient supervision and guidance; and
• An overall rating is provided for each area assessed.
18
Management
Michael T. Maloney
Scope
Generally, audits will cover at least the areas highly vulnerable to risks, e.g., security, safety and sanitation. Audits may focus upon institution-specific issues relating to annual goals, accreditation preparation,
areas previously reported as deficient or as a result of recent incidents. The length of the audit may vary
depending upon the scope and the findings. The director of the PDCU has the discretion to determine the
length of an audit. Auditors are not constrained from examining areas other than those initially planned if
evidence leads them to do so.
Stages of an Audit
There are five interrelated stages to the audit process. The order in which they are performed may vary
from time to time:
• Preparation
• Examination
• Evaluation
• Reporting
• Follow-up
Preparation Stage
The auditors should familiarize themselves with the previous audit's findings and with other relevant information such as recent incidents, trends observed from one facility to the next and Public Health inspection
reports.
Examination
The examination stage involves collecting data, touring the physical plant and interviewing staff and
inmates. It also includes collecting evidence, usually at the review site, and includes determining whether
the evidence is sufficient, reliable and relevant.
Evidence
During the examination stage data is collected. This data is considered evidence to support the conclusions contained in the final written report. There are four types of evidence:
Physical - (Direct observation of people, property, or processes) This is considered the most dependable
type of evidence and is essential in determining the adequacy of internal controls. Auditors must allow
sufficient time during the review to observe all-important procedures actually in operation and determine
their effectiveness.
Testimonial - (Interviews) While extremely valuable, this is considered the least dependable type of evidence, and information obtained during interviews requires corroboration before it can be used in support
of a finding.
Documentary - (Files, records, invoices, etc) This is an excellent method of verifying the reliability of evidence gained through other methods. However, auditors should not spend an inordinate amount of time
reviewing files and records to the exclusion of observation, interviews and analysis.
Analytical - (Developed by making judgements about other forms of evidence through computations, reasoning, comparison, etc.) This is used to conduct staff compliment analysis, figure vacancy rates, com-
Management
19
pare the situation of one site with other institutions, etc. Auditors must allow sufficient time to conduct
such analyses. A well-developed finding and a well-written assessment report should contain the results
of numerous analyses to give the reader a better perspective.
Standards of Evidence
Evidence utilized by auditors must meet the following three standards in order to be included in the final,
written audit report. It must be sufficient, competent, and relevant.
Sufficiency - There must be enough factual, convincing evidence to lead a knowledgeable, reasonable person who is not an expert in the area to the same conclusions as the auditor. Sufficient evidence is needed
to back up the conclusions. Sampling sizes for examinations, observations and interviews shall give reasonable assurance that the evidence is valid.
Reliability - The evidence must be reliable and the best that can be obtained through the use of reasonable
auditing methods. If there is any reason to question its validity or completeness, additional measures must
be taken to authenticate and corroborate.
Relevance - The evidence must be linked to the area and must have a logical, sensible relationship to the
issue being proved or disproved.
Deficiencies
Auditors may investigate and report on any significant problems, failings, weaknesses and need for
improvement. The term "deficiency" is used to describe any such concern and includes, but is not limited to:
• Deviation from policies, regulations or ACA standards
• Weaknesses in internal controls
• Lack of quality controls
• Failure to observe accepted standards or adhere to proven established procedures
• Lack of operating efficiency; or
• Failure to meet objectives
Exemplars
Auditors are also encouraged to investigate and report significant solutions, successes and strengths of
operations or programs that are exemplary.
Serious or Unusual Problems
Should a serious situation or problem manifest itself, the chairperson may halt or redirect the focus of the
assessment. Any evidence of fraud, waste, abuse or illegal acts should be immediately reported to the
superintendent.
Interviews
There are two types of interviews:
Discovery - The auditors may interview staff and inmates. Auditors should strive to interview a representative sample for accuracy. However, they should be as unobtrusive as possible. The auditors must
make it clear to the interviewee that notes may be taken.
20
Management
Michael T. Maloney
Closeout - The chairperson and other auditors shall offer to hold daily closeouts to review the daily findings and recommendations. Superintendents shall be given the opportunity to be informed of all significant findings prior to the final closeout.
Evaluation
The criteria by which the institutions are evaluated include, but are not limited to, applicable general laws,
departmental policies, ACAstandards and institutional procedures. Auditors must look for patterns, trends,
causes and effects of perceived problems, or seek to identify innovative practices. The evidence, earlier
discussed, will be collected into a series of findings, and questions regarding the significance of an issue
should be addressed to the chairperson.
In determining the relative significance of a deficiency the chairperson may be guided by the following:
• The extent of the problem or pervasiveness
• The risk to the affected operation or program area
• The importance of the operation or program to the institution's or DOC's mission
• Indication of fraud, waste, abuse or illegal acts or anything that might warrant adverse personnel action;
or
• Dollar amount involved
In determining the significance of any exemplary the following factors may be considered:
• Innovative
• Efficient, cost effective use of resources
• Effectively targets a problem; or
• Can be applied elsewhere
Ratings/Findings
Because of the great amount of information derived from facility assessments there is a need for a shorthand system of summarizing information from the assessment reports. The assignment of an overall rating meets this need. The rating reflects the overall judgement of the auditor as to how well the mission
and objectives of the program area are accomplished. The rating is determined by a careful evaluation of
how well the vital functions identified in the discipline guidelines are being carried out. Further, the rating is a measure of the performance of the program and is not directly related to the performance of the
program manager. The assignment of the rating is also intended to measure the performance of the program over time. The following terms and definitions are used:
Excellent - All functions are being performed exceptionally. There are superior internal controls.
Deficiencies are nonexistent or limited in number and not serious. Exceeds expectations.
Good - The program is performing all of its vital functions and there are a few deficiencies within any
function. Internal controls are such that there are limited deficiencies. Overall performance is above an
acceptable level.
Acceptable - This is the "baseline" for the rating system. The vital functions are being performed adequately. Although numerous deficiencies may exist, they do not detract from the acceptable accomplishment of the vital functions. Internal controls are such that there are no performance breakdowns that
would keep the program from continuing to accomplish its mission.
Deficient - One or more of the vital functions of the operation or program are not being performed adequately. There are weak internal controls.
Management
21
At Risk - The operation or program is impaired to the point that the area is not accomplishing its mission.
There are insufficient internal controls. (The vital functions of a given operation or program shall be determined by the director of the PDCU or the chairperson).
Each rated finding should be substantiated. The commentary should be titled "Discussion." Depending
upon the circumstances the auditors may structure their assessment by citing:
Conditions - State what was found, type of evidence used, extent of the problem, number of cases
involved, etc.
Criteria - State what should be found according to policy, regulations, etc. Use precise citations where
possible.
Effect - State what are the results or potential consequences of the existing condition.
Cause - Attempt to discern why the condition exists. Is it a training issue, a supervisory issue, etc.
Recommendations
Auditors should specify what action should be taken as a result of the findings reported. Examples of recommendations to make include the following:
• Propose a realistic, workable solution
• Propose an interim solution
• Propose further study
• Specify measures to be taken to comply with policy, etc.
• Give credit where due
• Propose implementation of the practice elsewhere; or
• Propose a formal commendation
Reporting
Fairness and Accuracy - The auditors must place deficient or exemplary findings into perspective. They
must be fair and avoid exaggeration. Only information adequately supported by sufficient evidence may
be included in the report. This information must be logically presented to illustrate the impact or potential impact of the deficiency. Critical comments must be presented in a balanced perspective, taking into
consideration any unusual difficulties or circumstances faced by the institution.
Clarity - The report must be clear and concise, and the conclusions drawn should be specific and not left
to inference. The information must be presented so as to persuade the reader of the appropriateness of the
conclusion.
Audit Report Follow Up
The director of the PDCU is responsible for informing the deputy commissioner of an inadequate superintendent response and may conduct a follow-up audit to gauge the rate of progress in a given operation
or program area noted to be deficient or at risk. The superintendent must be given oral notice prior to any
such follow-up audit. The superintendent is responsible for taking any necessary action to correct deficiencies cited and to improve internal controls.
22
Management
Inmate Transportation Services: Moving Into the
“New Millennium”
New York State Department of Corrections
Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner
In an innovative partnership with the private sector, the New York Department of Corrections has
revamped its inmate transportation system. Dramatic changes were imperative in view of the relentless
rise in inmate population and the corresponding expansion of transportation needs. New correctional facilities can now be found in every corner of the state. The diversity of the Empire State’s large system - 70
institutions varying widely in terms of security level and program offerings - requires constant movement
between facilities. The staggering volume - last year, 200,000 inmates and 400,000 property bags traveled
in excess of 1.4 million miles - strained the Department’s resources to the limit.
Previously, the Department of Correctional Services owned a mix of vehicles including full coaches, minibuses and vans. The Department also leased several buses and each individual facility maintained a contract for charter bus service on an as-needed basis. Administration of the system was day-to-day. Bus
trips were "door to door," from the sending to the receiving institution, over distances of several hundred
miles and eight to ten hours. Officers and drivers would often stay overnight, making the return trip (usually empty) the next day, rendering both staff and vehicle unproductive. Breakdowns were an everyday
occurrence, causing unacceptable delays, unnecessary costs to charter replacement busses and excessive
overtime.
In September 1998, New York entered into a contract with a private vendor to lease 15 full-size motor
coaches, each carrying 40 inmates plus five officers, and 11 mini-coaches carrying 20 inmates supervised
by two officers, modified to meet strict security specifications. This contract includes licensed drivers,
maintenance services and replacement vehicles. New York State Department of Correctional Services
continues to provide all security and supervision of inmates during transportation. This limited privatization takes the Department out of the "bus" business to concentrate on its primary mission: running a safe,
secure system and offering progressive inmate programs.
Management
23
Inmate Transportation Services
New York’s new transportation system features drop-off/exchange points in each of the Department’s 10
"hubs," clusters of geographically and administratively connected institutions. Each weekday, busses are
loaded at eight starting-point facilities. Transportation restraints are not removed and inmates do not exit
the coach until they reach their final destination. Each bus proceeds to its first drop-off/exchange facility,
where inmates destined for a facility in that hub get off to board a "local" van. Officers also depart the bus;
they will board another leased coach for the return trip – already loaded with inmates en route to facilities
back to the starting-point hub. The initial bus, with inmates who boarded at the starting-point plus a new
driver and new officers and inmates taken on at the drop-off/exchange, now continues to the next stop at
the next hub on its route.
Time between drop-off/exchange points is usually between two and four hours. Most full trips are completed in eight to ten hours. Staff are back at their home facilities each day. Each coach returns to the vendor at the end of the day where it is cleaned and ready for use the next morning. The new system significantly reduces the number of breakdowns, overtime costs and strain on staff waiting for repairs or replacements.
In less than a year and a half, New York’s new system has proven itself. It is economical and more efficient. Shorter trips contribute to the safety of staff, inmates and the public. The new system maximizes
inmate loads, creates savings, reduces vehicle downtime for maintenance, and maintains a high level of
security and supervision. Cooperation is the key to the new system. Everyone from central office to the
facility must take ownership and partnership. Communication and a willingness to work together have
made this a successful project.
24
Management
Back to Basics: Focusing on
What’s Important
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director
In the past decade Ohio has experienced extreme growth in the inmate population, leading to the building
of 20 new prisons and the hiring of thousands of new employees. In 1990 the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) had 7,500 employees; in 2000 we have almost 16,000 - more than
double in ten years. Therefore, many of our employees can be considered "green." This trend also applies
to supervisory staff. In 1990 we employed 600 sergeants, lieutenants and captains; in 2000 we have almost
1,000. Fifteen years ago, it would take a corrections officer about eight years to become a sergeant, and
another six to eight years to be considered for a lieutenant’s position. Today, many officers apply for a
sergeant’s position a mere two years after they are hired. The same trend holds true for wardens and
deputies - Ohio has a significant number whom, ten years ago, would not be considered as having paid
their dues. The bottom line is this: many employees from line staff on up have either forgotten the basics,
or never knew them to begin with.
Like many other states, Ohio performs a juggling act, enduring administrative changes, shifts in public
opinion, media scrutiny and the need for political correctness. The Department is also managing the impact
of legislative mandates such as a new sentencing structure and on-going attempts to restrict inmate privileges.
During the past five years DRC experienced several serious prison incidents including three successful
escapes from high security facilities and three separate and serious prison disturbances, including a riot on
death row. After each incident a detailed report was completed, assuring the governor and other stakeholders that the incident was an aberration and would not be repeated. After a while, the governor wryly
commented that the prison system seemed to be experiencing a lot of "aberrations."
Of course, the Department had already begun to question these incidents in depth. The amount of human
Management
25
Back to Basics
error involved was surprising and dismaying. The success of the events came, in several instances, as a
direct result of the failure of senior supervisors, lapses in judgement among many staff and a progression
of security failures.
Even though the incidents were dissimilar in nature and occurred at different prisons, DRC became
increasingly uneasy about what they meant to the agency symptomatically. Were they examples of incidents that are to be expected in the management of a large prison system, or were they actually a dangerous trend? Were they isolated, or were they signs of a more fundamental problem? It didn’t take long to
realize that DRC had an endemic problem that begged for a systemic change.
The first inclination was to turn to the audit process. DRC takes great pride in successfully passing all
audits and American Correctional Association (ACA) accreditation standards with high marks. In fact, the
agency may have become so immersed in the process of compliance that it lost touch with the reasons
behind the process. For example, if an employee doesn’t know the why of good chemical control, he or
she is less likely to worry about following through with all the steps required in the post orders. In the
case of each serious prison incident, simple security practices had not been carried out.
The question of whether the Department was good on paper but deficient in the actual practice of good
security had to be addressed. Further, the audit system, in and of itself, could not ensure that staff knew
what to do, and more importantly, why they were doing it. As managers, we weren’t sure what was needed, but did not feel that the situation called for a technical assistance audit. We wanted to discover common threads, themes and failures. A fundamental, cultural change was needed. That change came to be
known as "Back to Basics."
The very nature of the problem called for outside analysis, a fresh perspective and a radical change from
bottom to top. In 1998 George Camp of the Criminal Justice Institute was asked to assist with the Back
to Basics initiative.
The Ross Correctional Institution (RCI) was selected as the pilot site. Ross is a large prison, separated into
two compounds housing over 2,000 close and medium-security inmates. RCI top staff were confident that
theirs was a well run prison and that the new "central office" initiative should have been launched elsewhere. When asked about problems, staff listed the expected litany of understaffing and inadequate
resources. RCI managers also had to overcome a natural trepidation about taking a close look at their practices. George Camp became famous for asking his "mantra" question - "How do you know that when you
leave the institution, things are operating as they should be?" Logs and paperwork excepted, senior staff
had difficulty in answering the "how do you know?" question.
Back to Basics is designed to go right to the source to find answers. Line staff on post were interviewed
at length about their jobs. They were assured of amnesty in exchange for honest information. The goal
was not to catch staff doing wrong, but to ascertain the truth about how they really did their jobs. Line staff
were asked:
• What do your post orders say you should be doing?
• What are you really doing?
• How would you re-write your post orders to accomplish what needs to be done?
As the process progressed it became evident that many post orders were impossible to adhere to. Others
had grown so unwieldy that they contradicted each other. Staff were sometimes asked to do the impossi-
26
Management
ble and were often handicapped in their ability to carry out their duties effectively and correctly. This basic
realization had the effect of a light bulb clicking on in the minds of the team. Line staff were asked for
suggestions, improvements were developed and solutions quickly implemented.
Back to Basics was working at Ross. The Department wanted to roll Back to Basics out to all the prisons
and needed a process to do that. Two necessities were clear: leadership from the top and tangible results.
RCI Warden Terry Collins was tapped to lead the review at the next two prisons. DRC then had three
wardens trained and primed to cascade Back to Basics throughout the prison system.
So, what does Back to Basics entail? First, the warden selects multi-disciplinary teams to conduct the
review. The teams brainstorm areas that require the most urgent attention such as the entry building,
perimeter, dorms, etc. The teams then conduct post order interviews with officers. C.O.s are assured that
there will be no reprisals for truthful information. Once confident of the review team’s sincerity, the floodgates open with information about inconsistencies and deficiencies. When possible, changes are quickly
implemented to demonstrate to staff that the teams value officers’ input and act on their suggestions.
Information about the changes is widely disseminated to show results and to increase acceptance of the
teams as they move throughout the institution.
Back to Basics was initiated at some of Ohio’s largest and most populous prisons. By working closely
with line staff, a sense of pride and ownership in Back to Basics quickly grew. Several wardens reported
that employees would stop them in the yard and ask when Back to Basics was coming to their areas.
Others went ahead on their own and found problem areas and resolved them. Now, asking the bottom line
"how do you know" questions about security has become part of DRC culture.
Although Back to Basics was eventually embraced in the prisons, it was not without some initial roadblocks. First, employees were weary of new initiatives that were perceived as entailing a lot of work with
little or no tangible results. Also, the natural resistance to admit to weaknesses and air problems had to be
overcome. Employees were understandably reluctant to admit that they didn’t follow post orders. And
finally, the teams had to continuously counter complaints about inadequate resources. It was made clear
that Back to Basics did not entail additional staff or funds. In fact, the focus of Back to Basics is to straighten out existing problems that make it difficult for staff to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. Staff
began to see that by simplifying post orders, reducing forms, simplifying processes and working as a team
to improve efficiency resulted in more time to do the real work inherent to good security.
Once the initial Back to Basics post reviews are conducted and changes made, it’s important to revisit
those areas to ensure that the changes have addressed the problems and have not created new ones. When
new problems emerge, the process is once again followed.
Many DRC facilities have developed Back to Basics newsletters to disseminate information and findings
and to trumpet success stories. These and a central Back to Basics newsletter have been placed on DRC’s
Back to Basics website on the Department’s Intranet for access by all employees.
What’s next for Back to Basics? The process was so well received in the prisons that it was launched in
DRC’s parole supervision field services. As in the prison population, Ohio had experienced significant
growth in parole and probation caseloads. Again, situations emerged where parole staff were bogged down
in paperwork at the expense of good supervision. The Back to Basics process, along with innovative developments such as joint policing, allowed field officers to concentrate on actually keeping tabs on offend-
Management
27
ers. Back to Basics reviews are also being conducted throughout DRC’s medical and record-keeping
areas.
It’s emblematic of the process that there is no end point. Back to Basics is becoming enmeshed in the culture of day-to-day work. A DRC regional director pointed out that Back to Basics resulted in a shift in the
way audits and inspections are conducted. It’s also changed in-service training. Employees now perform
hands-on training and training that isn’t endemic to their area. For example, teachers may conduct tool
control and captains may be found working in the library.
Two valuable byproducts have emerged as a result: The traditional barriers between custody and treatment
are dissolving and non-security staff are now more security conscious. As Ohio explores everything from
asthma deaths to suicides, to record office mistakes and inmate assaults, the basic questions are asked and
basic solutions applied. "Back to Basics" is not rocket science; it’s just common sense.
28
Management
Centralized Inmate Transportation:
Saving Resources and Improving Safety
Once upon a time, when you left prison it was because you had completed your sentence. You either
walked out wearing a cheap suit, or you were carried out wearing a toe tag. Today, most states have
numerous prisons and inmates are shuttled to various facilities for myriad reasons including medical or
mental health needs, a change in security status or special programming needs. On any given day, up to
200 inmates are moving among reception centers, the courts, medical facilities and 32 prisons on Ohio’s
highways.
Ohio’s prisoner transportation process evolved along with the prison system and correctional theory. Until
the mid-1970’s there was little need to transport prisoners anywhere. Most state prisons were large, allpurpose facilities that met virtually every need. A prison building boom in the 70’s and 80’s and the development of a formal prisoner security classification system spurred the need for transferring prisoners
among facilities. Each prison transported it’s own prisoners using whatever means and staff available.
Today, the safe and effective transportation of offenders is basic to successful correctional management.
There are many compelling reasons to transport inmates, and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction (DRC), the country’s fifth largest correctional agency, experiences all of them, including:
• Administrative transfers among institutions.
• Moving elderly or frail inmates to the Hocking Correctional Facility, a prison designed and programmed
for older and medically fragile offenders.
• Moving inmates classified as sex offenders to the Madison Correctional Institution, home of Ohio’s
youthful offender and sex offender centers.
• Transferring pregnant inmates to the Franklin Pre-Release Center in Columbus for extensive pre-natal
care and programming and then to the nearby Ohio State University Medical Center for the delivery.
• Transferring mentally ill inmates to and from the Oakwood Correctional Facility (OCF) in Lima, a prison
that focuses on severely mentally ill inmates.
Management
29
Centralized Inmate Transportation
• Taking inmates to and from the Corrections Medical Center for appointments. A process to establish an
overnight hub at the Corrections Medical Center for inmates with morning appointments at the nearby
Ohio State University Medical Center is underway.
Centralized transportation is intended to provide inmate transport between facilities and other locales in a
safe, secure and timely manner (Kroth, 1997). The ability to maintain security is intended to increase as
well, with the intent of preserving the Department’s identity as a high reliability organization (HRO). High
reliability organizations typically refer to agencies that constantly deal with dangers but manage to operate nearly error free through intensive planning and leadership (Babb & Ammons, 1996). Frequent and
intensive staff training is a critical component to success within any HRO. However, in relation to inmate
transportation, a national study revealed that fewer than half of the respondents had ever received special
or refresher training in prisoner transportation (National Sheriffs’Association, 1997).
Expecting unexpected events to occur and providing a proper, controlled response is what differentiates
successful inmate transports from disaster. Transporting inmates presents a vast array of different opportunities for error because, even though security is being maintained, inmates are outside the secure perimeters of the institution. In effect, the prison’s security envelope must be transported from the confines of a
prison to the streets where citizens reside. Traffic accidents, vehicle maintenance problems, medical emergencies and escape attempts are only a few of the many unexpected events that may occur. Public perceptions over safety become exacerbated when inmate vehicles are seen on our roadways.
In part, the scrutiny of mass media to inmate transportation disasters leads to increased concerns. For
example, while awaiting trial for murder, Richard Lacey Letner of California escaped from jail and was
later apprehended in Iowa. While being transferred back to California, Letner and an accomplice escaped
from transport custody (Bobit, 1998). Although the concerns of citizens under these circumstances typically are localized, Hollywood movies can attract international attention to the potential problems inherent to inmate transportation. In "The Fugitive," a group of prisoners escape from a prison-bound bus. In
the movie, "Con Air" violent federal inmates overtake a prison transport airplane dubbed "The Jailbird,"
which is operated by the U.S. Marshal’s Service.
Maintaining the safety and security of prisons and the public is the overarching reason for an effective
transportation system. Today’s prisons are specialized and categorized so that each offender is housed in
the facility that best meets his or her security classification and programming needs. Ohio’s DRC had
developed various plans and proposals to streamline and centralize prisoner transport in the mid-1980’s
and early 1990’s. Each plan fell short of implementation due to a lack of union support, inadequate technology and a philosophy of independence among institutions that made for a less than ideal cooperative
climate.
In 1997 four factors brought the concept of centralized inmate transportation in Ohio to the forefront:
• The encroachment of privatization in a number of correctional arenas such as medical care, food service
and the operation of entire prisons served as a strong motivating force for unions and management to band
together.
• Similarly, the application of Total Quality Management principles to the correctional field demonstrated that labor and management could achieve substantial results when barriers are removed and staff are
encouraged to contribute to the development of plans and solutions.
• Bean counters and file folders were replaced with computers and a sophisticated inmate tracking system.
DRC’s Department Offender Tracking System (DOTS) is capable of instantly sorting through bed space
availability and will soon be able to assist the transportation process by sifting through important variables
30
Management
Reginald A Wilkinson
such as age, medical and educational requirements, security classification, separation orders and the like.
• DRC was approaching 100% American Correctional Association Accreditation for all its facilities and
departments (a goal now realized), resulting in a more homogenous agency in terms of policies and procedures lending themselves to centralization.
An Inmate Transportation System Team was assembled in November of 1997 to study the possibilities of
centralized transportation. The team conducted a complete survey of institutional transportation operations and concluded that clustering institutions for transport to medical clinics at the Corrections Medical
Center (CMC), and utilizing CMC as an exchange hub for administrative transfers could save the
Department almost $1 million per year. The plan was reviewed by a committee from the Ohio Civil
Service Employee’s Association (OCSEA) which encouraged implementation and offered additional input
such as using the system to serve as a centralized interoffice mail carrier.
In April 1998, a focus group of nine wardens was convened to critique the plan and add their suggestions.
The wardens’concerns and suggestions centered primarily around procedures for identifying and separating inmates with "no contact" orders; the expected length of the transportation officers’ workday (ten to
12 hours); procedures and policies for the transfer, responsibility, search and control of inmates; and coordination, communications and equipment. The wardens noted that lab work, inter-office mail and other
routinely carried items could be carried by the transport vehicles. They further suggested that scheduling
could be located at CMC rather than at Central Office and that CMC would provide authority over transport officers while they were at that site.
A coordinator was appointed and an Implementation Committee convened with the mission to "resolve
any and all impediments to the establishment of centralized transportation." The group acted as a resource
for technical information, an arena for labor/management negotiations of issues and a board of directors
for the implementation process. The area of most concern was the necessity of changing a long-standing
security principle: that each institution’s transport office "shakes down" or searches the individuals he or
she is transporting. Under the centralized system, hub officers are assisted by the presence of a lieutenant
to ensure quality control when personnel other than the actual transport officers conduct shakedowns.
A great deal of preparation was required by DRC’s Office of Management Information Systems prior to
implementation. Ten data entry volunteers and ten temporary employees spent an entire month entering
classification data into the newly created transportation module. A scheduler can now enter an inmate
name onto a load list and be immediately notified of a security concern, such as a separation order among
feuding inmates, that needs to be resolved before proceeding.
Ohio’s Centralized Transportation project was piloted in November 1998 when Madison Correctional
Institution transported the adjacent London Correctional Institution’s inmates to CMC. Since that time, 26
of Ohio’s 32 prisons have formed clusters and come on line. Results from the first year of operation were
impressive: 19,824 inmates were transported, with a drop in per inmate cost from $113 to $80 – a savings
of 29%. This represents a $700,000 annual savings for the Department.
Besides the obvious cost savings, there are several other "bonuses" inherent in the new system:
• The reduction in wear and tear for vans and buses no longer needed for transportation is resulting in a
delay in the purchase of many new vehicles.
• Specialized, mandatory training has been implemented for transportation officers, resulting in increased
professionalism and safer, more secure transports.
Management
31
Centralized Inmate Transportation
• There is a uniform policy for the use of restraints in transportation, regardless of an inmate’s security
classification. Inmates are transported as if they were maximum security despite their actual classification.
• Transports have become more efficient; resulting in much less lost time and frustration among inmates
and staff.
• Non-inmate cargo, such as lab tests and DRC internal mail have been incorporated into the system and
are also operating much more efficiently and smoothly.
As technology continues to evolve, the Department plans to make use of Global Positioning Systems and
a new law enforcement radio system to incorporate pinpoint accuracy and immediate law enforcement networking and assistance as needed.
The Department is looking ahead to bigger and better uses for Centralized Transportation. Reception
inmates ready to report to their assigned "parent" institution may soon travel in clusters. The Adult Parole
Authority and county sheriffs are considering how they might also benefit from the centralized system.
As always, security and public safety will continue to be the guiding principle for inmate transport. We
don’t want a repeat of the scene in "Con Air," when the hero, Cameron Poe, played by Nicholas Cage,
observes, "they managed to get every creep and freak in the universe onto this one plane, then managed to
let them take it over. Next time, I’m taking the bus."
Babb, J. and R. Ammons. "BOP Inmate Transport: A High Reliability Organization,"
Today. July, 1996.
Corrections
Bobit, B. (1998). Death Row. Bobit Publishing and Police Magazine. V. 8.
Kroth, J. (1997). Central Transportation Unit. Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
National Sheriffs’ Association. (1997). "Court Security and the Transportation of Prisoners," NIJ
Research Preview. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
32
Management
Leadership Development
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
James L. Saffle, Director
As corrections managers, we are faced with many daily challenges, both critical and non-critical. Through
experience and proper training it is sometimes much easier to know what is immediately necessary than it
is to predict what an agency’s needs will be in the future. But we all recognize the criticality of preparedness vs. reactiveness. Although the lack of succession planning is not a life-threatening situation,
the consequences can be devastating to an agency if a plan for future agency leaders is not in place.
After realizing that within the next five to seven years, the upper management of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections would be eligible to retire, the agency implemented a very aggressive leadership development program. At the time this program was initiated, internal financial resources were available that allowed Oklahoma the opportunity to seek outside expert assistance in this area. This, however,
may not be a reality for some, or even our own agency, in the future.
Because financial resources were available, high standards for the quality of the program were set. The
first critical step, as with any new initiative, was to clearly define what we were trying to achieve. This
was not a difficult process due to the focus of the program. What was more challenging was deciding
which method was the best to achieve this goal. So, how does an agency decide which one is the "best"
for them? Of course, this must obviously be designed to meet the individual needs of a particular agency,
but there are some practices that can be shared by many within our field.
If the goal was to develop future leaders for the agency, we first had to assist them in understanding their
areas of strength, as well as those areas that had the potential to "derail" them. This was accomplished by
utilizing a 360 degree-survey instrument, which was completed by each participant, their immediate supervisor, five of their peers and five of their direct reports. The feedback was reviewed by an outside consultant who also provided individual feedback to each participant.
Management
33
Leadership Development
Secondly, after being presented with such important information, the agency had to ensure that the recipients were given the assistance they needed to develop their individual development plan. This also was
achieved with the direct assistance of the consultant(s). It is important to note that receiving such personal information from others is not always well received, so it is critical that each person have adequate time
to process this information. It is also critical that it be delivered by someone that is certified with that particular instrument.
Thirdly, it was essential to the participants’ development to incorporate a long-term development project
into the program. The entire class was, therefore, tasked with identifying three areas within the agency in
need of improvement. The list of areas was a segment of the 360 survey, and everyone who completed it
rated each area according to its importance for success. Although there were obvious areas identified as
less important than others, it was the consensus of the group that there were three that needed improvement. From there, the participant group chose which topic they could commit themselves to work on along
with other participant committee members. The purpose of the project assignments was twofold. The primary purpose was to provide the participants with a structured developmental project that would give them
practical learning experience. Since it is probably safe to assume that most agencies/companies invest a
large amount of resources in delivering traditional classroom training to their managers, it is also probably safe to assume that the majority of a manager’s time is not spent in the classroom. "Only a minute part
of a manager ’s time is spent in the classroom. Suggesting that it’s in the other 99.90 per cent of the time
that the bulk of development takes place. In other words, people develop on the job and the expenses associated with learning-while-doing are part of the investment in development." 1 Therefore, these projects
were used for that purpose as well as to focus on organizational issues that had been identified through the
utilization of the 360 degree assessment instrument.
The next phase of the training program took place six months later. During this time, participants were
expected to meet with their immediate supervisors to agree upon clear and concise goals regarding their
individual development plan, and to set a specific time frame in which to meet them. It is noteworthy to
mention that the participants’immediate supervisors were actively involved in the first phase of the leadership development program. It was felt that the successful development of the middle managers would
be greatly enhanced if the senior-level leaders were jointly committed to the development environment.
Additionally, the participation of the senior-level leaders was designed by the consultants to continue their
own individual development and to enhance their ability to support and coach the middle-level managers
who report directly to them.
It should further be noted that executive staff were also actively involved in the process. Prior to the second phase of the training program all executive staff completed the 360-degree assessment process, and
they also met with the consultants to receive their survey feedback. Although this may not be a possibility for many agencies, it does help support the fact that the agency is committed to the success of the program.
The executive staff were also involved in the second phase of the program, which, as previously stated,
took place six months after the initial training session. During this phase the middle managers and senior
level managers received feedback from the two remaining assessment instruments, the Firo-B and the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator. This feedback was also delivered by the consultant group. As reported by
Marie MacTavish, lead consultant, the purpose of the four day leadership program was to guide partici1Lombardo, M.M., McCall, M.W., Morrison, A.M., Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop On the Job.
1998. The Free Press, New York.
34
Management
James L. Saffle
pants through a process that would lead them to greater self-awareness and that would encourage changes
based on that understanding.
An additional expectation for the middle managers during that week was to present their final project to
all executive staff members. Because the projects had been previously identified as organizational needs,
the ultimate goal for each project committee was to obtain the support of executive staff to proceed with
their plan of action. Following the presentations, each executive staff member was asked to evaluate the
presentations based upon the following criteria:
Evaluation Criteria for Leadership Group Presentations
• Presentation - The presentation should be clear, organized, well thought out and follow a sequential order.
The presentation should include visual aids, handouts and oral communication.
• Political/Organizational Culture - Did the content represent recommendations that fit within the organizational culture and political climate? (Big Picture) Was research or collaboration done to ensure acceptance of the proposal by stakeholders prior to presentation? Were any obstacles identified?
• Policy/Procedure - Does the proposal conflict with current policy? Did the presentation address this?
• Budget - Does the proposal include cost estimates to implement? Was the budget considered at all?
Once the projects were approved by executive staff the teams were then responsible for implementing their
individual plans within the guidelines established by executive staff. Oklahoma’s first group of middle
managers is currently at this stage in their leadership development training. Upon completion of the leadership development projects, each team will be expected to produce a final written report to executive staff.
This report should be presented in great detail, explaining the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the
project. It is important to have established a base line prior to the project implementation so that the final
results are measurable. This will require that an evaluation piece be included in the process.
Lastly, it would be ideal if each team could meet independently with an executive staff representative to
debrief the practical learning process. This will serve as a vehicle for the middle managers to reflect upon
their experiences and identify areas in which they were successful and those that were development opportunities.
In closing, it should be mentioned that there are many different levels of learning that take place in a
process such as this. For this reason, it is important to recognize that the lack of success of a project is not
necessarily a measurement of one's individual development. Although this program is a work in progress,
it is a step forward into the future of our agency.
Management
35
36
Management
Managing Special Needs Offenders
Iowa Department of Corrections
Kip Kautzky, Director
Developing services for medically, mentally and behaviorally disordered offenders emerged as a complex
challenge in 1997 when Carter Goble Associates and correctional practitioners from across the state
engaged in a comprehensive study of Iowa’s offender population. Surprisingly, more than one of every six
offenders met medical or mental health criteria for advanced care. Although deinstitutionalization of mental health hospitals may have suggested this finding, the outcome generated a reconsideration of critical
funding for special needs offenders.
Three general types of special needs offenders were identified by the Carter Goble work. They are the
medically limited, the behaviorally disordered and the psychosocially challenged offenders. Each group
contains several subgroups.
The medically limited offenders include the following:
• Long-term, physically-disabled offenders who are dependent on medical equipment or machinery
• Frail, elderly needing sheltered-care assistance with activities of daily living and access to medical supervision
• Short-term, physically-disabled offenders who may be sick or recovering from surgery or may be pregnant
The behaviorally disordered offenders include three subcategories:
• Long-term, secure administrative segregation offenders requiring separation longer than the normal disciplinary segregation in a very secure setting
• Habitually disruptive offenders with a history of assaults, severely offensive hygiene and an inability to
conform to the prison routine
• Disruptive young offenders who are immature or poorly adjusted to incarceration
Management
37
Managing Special Needs Offenders
Finally, the psychosocially challenged offenders are those whom clinicians-psychiatrists, psychologists
and social workers define as special needs with one of the following diagnoses:
• Mentally challenged
• Borderline intellectual functioning
• Socially inadequate
• Mentally disordered
• Temporally mentally disordered
At that time, there were examples of each type of special needs offender within the Iowa Department of
Corrections. They could be found throughout the system in segregation units, infirmary modified housing
units, "special needs units" and mixed with general population. These offenders have been integrated into
the general population with varying degrees of success. Some were well integrated while others were not
able to adapt to life within that population. Armed with the findings of Carter Goble, the Department
developed a plan to address both the male and female special needs offender populations.
Female Special Needs Unit
Utilizing renovated space at a mental health institution, correctional services merged with mental health
services to support the first special needs unit for female offenders. This unit now provides 100 beds to
serve a growing female population. The program is designed to provide the offender with the coping skills
and behavior capacity for successful adjustment to her environment. The program begins with an assessment of the offender’s ability to adapt, her potential for reintegration and therapeutic needs. Over 70% of
the women in the unit have been treated at one time or another for psychiatric conditions. Additionally,
over 80% of the women report a history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. Consequently, many of
the treatment programs being designed address disassociative disorders, depression, anxiety and psychosis, as well as issues related to the adjustment to incarceration. One of the promising features of this
program is the replacement of disciplinary hearings with behavior hearings that address not only negative
behavior but also positive changes demonstrated by the offender. The theory is built on "What Works"
literature that suggests four reinforcements for positive behavior in order to strengthen the possibility of
real change. When on-going unconstructive behavior is identified, behavior plans are formulated to
address the issue. These plans outline the expectations including the offender’s responsibilities, the interventions to be used and incentives for positive change. This program allows both treatment and security
staff to intervene on behalf of the offender in order to manage behavior.
The program provides a mental health observation component for offenders in need of increased observation to ensure they do not hurt themselves, others or DOC property. This component of the program is
provided for offenders who need reduced stimulation, observation during escalated behavior and/or
decreased emotional intensity. Programming includes three levels, which allows the offender maximum
interactions with others as the individual situation warrants.
Health Services and medication management play an important role in the operation of a special needs
unit. A minimum of 16 hours of direct nursing contact for offenders is provided through this program. It
is important that offenders understand how medication should and should not be used in the application of
their daily lives.
Other issues addressed in the program include, but are not limited to, eating disorders, dual diagnosis
issues, etc. Heavy concentration is given to community service work projects and includes: quilting blan-
38
Management
Kip Kautzky
kets for domestic shelter homes, sewing first aid bags for children in underprivileged countries and crocheting blankets for "crack babies."
The Department of Corrections recognizes that offenders with special needs have particular issues that
must be addressed when returning to the community. This program employs a social worker to assist
offenders in formulating long-term goals, identifying schedules, continued care, appointments and community resources needed by the offender upon release from incarceration. The social worker also works
with offenders to help identify skills and strategies to improve their opportunity for meaningful employment upon release from incarceration.
High-Custody Male Offender Special Needs Unit
Groundbreaking for the construction of a special needs unit for higher-custody, male offenders took place
in January 2000 at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Ft. Madison. This facility will serve 200 mentally and
medically troubled offenders. This intensive treatment setting will focus on stabilizing, socializing and
reintegrating the offender back into an appropriate general population setting or a reintegration program.
A level system of behavioral modification will be employed to provide incentives for offenders to respond
appropriately. This will also ensure that custody restrictions are appropriately geared to the offender’s
behavior so that staff and offender safety is preserved. The special needs unit will receive referrals from
all male facilities in the state including the Iowa State Penitentiary itself via a formal written referral. The
selection of offenders will be based upon the following criteria: a behaviorally disruptive offender who
also may be:
• Mentally disordered
• Have a learning deficit
• Borderline intellectual functioning
• Socially inadequate
This unit will provide bed space for high-risk offenders who require extended control within the most
secure setting as well as structure and program services for those special needs offenders who best fit the
classification as a high-risk management case. The literature suggests that staffing the special needs unit
that requires some phase of extended control is the single most important factor in ensuring a safe and
humane operation. Programming will be unique to this unit in that it will be offered in several locations
and in a variety of methods to accommodate the movement capabilities of offenders based on their program levels: in the central program area; on the pod; in the multipurpose room on the pods; at the cell door
and via the Iowa Communications Network closed-circuit TV. As offenders increase their program level
through a display of stabilized behavior and attainment of treatment goals, they are rewarded with
increased activities and privileges and will progress through the levels. Staffing and formal program
development of the unit will occur in early 2001 with occupancy scheduled for fall 2001.
Medium-Custody, Special Needs Offenders Program
In January 2000, a design team of architects, program planners and correctional practitioners began the
work of designing a 170-bed special needs unit at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center at Oakdale,
Iowa. These beds will serve medium-custody, special needs offenders system wide. A high-level medical
infirmary is being designed to address those needing infirmary care as well as those needing either shortor long-term ambulatory care. Those with other non-medical special needs will be addressed in either a
secure observation area, a transitional area or a long-term care area.
Management
39
The institution is developing an inmate-based hospice program to deal effectively and humanely with the
terminally ill offender.
Initial planning has occurred with the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics to explore outpatient clinics being operated on site, as opposed to transporting offenders to the University. Major physical renovations and program enhancements are being planned for the existing licensed psychiatric hospital to allow
it to manage some of Iowa’s most dangerous mentally ill offenders.
1997 statistics reflect that 16.7% of Iowa Department of Corrections population falls within the special
needs criteria. The three programs described above represent a significant system-wide approach in managing this challenging group.
40
Management
A Holistic Approach to Female Offenders
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
A.T. Wall, II, Director
Rhode Island’s women’s prison has implemented an aggressive and holistic approach to the management
and programming of female offenders. It defies the punitive and negative culture of many correctional
environments by insisting that inmates be treated with dignity and respect and that they be afforded every
opportunity to restructure their lives.
As is true of virtually every system, our female population represents a small portion (6.4%) of our overall inmate census. We recognize, however, that they are a very needy and complicated group. The nexus
between their criminal behavior and the set of problems that have shaped their lives is clear and easy to
trace. Their crimes are usually non-violent and their terms of incarceration relatively short. They will
spend most of their lives in the community. Unaddressed, however, their behavior patterns will lead to
further crime and additional sentences of imprisonment. While in custody, they are vulnerable to physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
In order to meet the challenges posed by this constellation of characteristics, Rhode Island has, over the
past nine years, put into place a program with three long-term goals:
• To create an institutional environment that is safe, humane and conducive to treatment.
• To ensure that services and programming are gender specific, sensitive to all areas of concern to women
offenders and thoroughly integrated with each other.
• To build essential ties to community groups that will become aware of the needs of female offenders and
develop strategies to meet these needs. The services will begin in the institutions and will continue upon
release.
Management
41
A Holistic Approach to Female Offenders
A Safe and Supportive Environment
The first goal was fundamental to the success of the other two. It is, in fact, the foundation on which any
meaningful programming must rest. The Department has attacked this problem through a multi-faceted
strategy. Inspectors aggressively investigate all allegations of mistreatment, whatever the source. A special commitment to acquiring the particular expertise needed to address staff-inmate sexual misconduct
was made. The warden of the Women’s Prison and the chief of internal affairs formed a team to attend the
National Institute of Corrections’training in this topic. Vigorous investigation is accompanied by zero tolerance. Findings of misconduct result in termination and, when the law allows, referral for prosecution.
Recognizing that a pro-active approach is also essential, the chief inspector personally presents a module
on sexual misconduct at each pre- and in-service training program. The training is repeated for all staff
working in the prison each year.
This strategy, and the tone that it sets, has greatly reduced the number of incidents and complaints. It has
encouraged inmates to regard the facility as a place where they will be protected and treated with dignity,
and where they can concentrate on programming and treatment.
Holistic and Gender-Specific Services
Against this backdrop, the agency has flooded the institution with services that connect to and reinforce
each other. Taken together, they address the complex web of problems and needs which underscore the
criminal behavior of this population. This approach begins immediately upon sentencing. The initial classification process is used to individualize attention to women and to design plans that most closely meet
their needs. Classification also yields insight into the inmate’s stage of readiness for treatment.
Participation in programming is voluntary. Women are encouraged to become involved but are not sanctioned if they do not participate. Every woman who wishes to join a program is afforded the opportunity
regardless of her motivation. Eighty-five percent of the inmate population has chosen to take part in some
program offering.
Programming is gender specific and emphasizes wrap-around services. In addition to the traditional educational, counseling and health care services, women are addressed as mothers, victims of sexual and
domestic violence and substance abusers in need of comprehensive intervention. The facility provides
preparation for employment, physical fitness and wellness programs, health education, HIV risk prevention, parenting classes, meditation and specialized counseling aimed at dealing with grief, loss and poor
self-esteem. Inmates learn about healthy relationships – how to establish and sustain them.
Involvement of the Community
The premise that women are relational underscores the third goal. Women form relationships and these
relationships shape their behavior. For this reason, services are provided through community-based organizations and individuals as much as possible. The agency believes that if trusting, healthy relationships
with persons in the community can be created during incarceration, women are more likely to maintain
these connections upon release.
Community agencies provide most treatment. Student internships bring large numbers of college and
42
Management
A.T. Wall
graduate students inside the prison to work with inmates. A nationally acclaimed mentoring program
matches strong and sympathetic volunteers with offenders in need of role models and support.
Discharge planning begins immediately upon sentencing. The Discharge Planning Team works with the
information obtained through initial classification to develop a formal pre- and post-release program for
every inmate. These community-based case managers meet individuals at the onset of their sentences and
carry them on caseloads for up to one year after discharge from prison. They help maintain the connection to the same service providers who forged a relationship with the inmate in the institution and will continue to work with her as a client in the community.
The facility has found that many women make progress in the structured safety of the prison. They falter
when they are released into the unstructured chaos of their lives on the street without a practical re-entry
plan, support network or safe place to live. By building these trusting relationships during imprisonment
and then maintaining them following discharge, the transition to freedom is bridged and the chances of a
woman’s success is vastly enhanced. The presence of so many members of the community serves another purpose as well: it normalizes the environment and alters the undesirable dynamics of a total institution.
Rhode Island is encouraged by the on-going data collection. The recidivism rate of untreated women
offenders is 60%. Recidivism for women who have received treatment in the prison setting is 38%. A
population whose treatment services in prison are accompanied by community aftercare re-offended at a
rate of 18%. When women do re-enter the system, they have remained stable for longer periods of time.
The program encourages them to resume treatment where they last left off.
One cannot expect all – or even most – women to change lifelong patterns of destructive behavior with a
single stretch of intervention. Rhode Island is dedicated to providing them with the tools they need to continue the effort – both during incarceration and after release. This sustained commitment acknowledges
that the process of change often occurs in small increments over an extended time. Although this approach
requires patience, the payoff is great. If we can alter the direction of a woman’s behavior, we save the
expense of future imprisonment, reduce the cost of crime, alleviate the disintegration of families and
relieve the burden of state care for families. These outcomes, as well as the less tangible but equally valuable benefits of changed lives, are at the core of our "corrections" mission.
Management
43
44
Management
Chapter 2
Security
45
46
Security Threat Group Management Unit
New Jersey Department of Corrections
Jack Terhune, Commissioner
Gangs and the problems associated with them have proliferated in correctional facilities over the past two
decades. Inmates affiliated with gangs often maintain close ties with their organizations outside of the
prison system. Department data shows that gangs are responsible for high levels of contraband activity
including drug distribution, and a large portion of prison violence against staff and other inmates. When
gangs are permitted to operate unimpeded within a prison system, they not only create a hazardous working environment for staff, but the expense associated with disturbances caused by gangs can be astronomical.
The New Jersey Department of Correction’s (NJDOC) Security Threat Group
The Security Threat Group Management Unit (STGMU), located at Northern State Prison has been
designed to isolate problematic, gang affiliated inmates or those identified as gang leaders from the general population. At the same time, the STGMU provides a structured and controlled environment where
inmate behavior is closely monitored by a team of departmental staff. The unit employees a three-phase
Behavior Modification Program which requires inmates to renounce their Security Threat Group affiliation prior to completion.
The NJDOC has thus-far designated six gangs as Security Threat Groups: Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods,
Five Percent Nation, Latin Kings, Neta and Prison Brotherhood of Bikers. Inmate gang members who have
been identified as "core" members of designated STGs are recommended for placement into the STGMU
by the Department's Special Investigations Division, Intelligence Section. "Core" members are defined as
previously identified STG members further identified as STG leaders, those who have been involved in
STG related incidents or individuals who have been found guilty of any serious disciplinary infraction.
Security
47
Security Threat Group Management Unit
STG "core" members are validated for placement into the STGMU by the STGMU Hearing Committee, a
three-member panel responsible for reviewing the information provided by the intelligence section and
determining, based upon the information provided, whether the STG member meets the qualifications of
a "core" member. The STGMU Hearing Committee also has the responsibility of reviewing and monitoring inmates' progress in each phase of the program and to evaluate their advancement through the phase
process and/or return to the appropriate phase level.
To complete the three-phase program, inmates are required to successfully participate in substantive and
relevant programs that deal with areas such as alternatives to violent behavior, cognitive thinking and nonviolent living. The goal is to give inmates insight and teach them the skills necessary to interact appropriately without the perceived need of gang membership. It also forces inmates to deal with the consequences of their actions. Prior to moving through the program, inmates are required to sign an
"Acknowledgement of Expectations" for each phase that clearly outlines their responsibilities for successful program completion.
The STGMU initiative was put into effect on March 4, 1998. Since the inception of STGMU, the NJDOC
has deterred Security Threat Group activities while minimizing the occurrence of organized violent behavior and assaults on staff and inmates. The groundwork for the management strategy was laid in 1994 with
the formation of the Intelligence Section of the Special Investigations Division. The intelligence section
established a formal identification process for gang members within the Department and also established
Institutional Intelligence Committees at all facilities in the NJDOC. The intelligence committee concept
has been the "hub" in the gang intelligence-gathering wheel and has fostered a working relationship
between uniformed staff and investigators.
Since 1997, all institutional intelligence committees have assembled once a month and a statewide perspective on gang activity is maintained. All law enforcement agencies are invited to attend this monthly
meeting which is usually held at MAGLOCLEN (Middle Atlantic Great Lakes Organized Crime Law
Enforcement Network) headquarters in Newtown, Pennsylvania, on the second Tuesday of each month.
To further combat the growing gang problem on the streets of New Jersey, the Department has designated
a gang intelligence officer at each district parole office in New Jersey. Those parole officers are updated
monthly with lists of identified gang members who have been paroled to their district office. The intent
is to impose special conditions on paroled gang members, whereby their parole is subject to revocation if
gang activity is observed. Another key component in the implementation of a successful gang management program is training. Intelligence section investigators have provided ongoing gang awareness training on the Departmental level for several years. They have also provided this same training for many law
enforcement agencies on the local, state and federal level. The NJDOC has become nationally recognized
as a leader, not only in the management of gangs, but also in the gang intelligence gathering process.
In calendar year 1998, the NJDOC experienced a 27% drop in assaults on staff compared to 1997. The
Department also had an 80% drop in gang-related incidents and disturbances over that same time period.
These statistics demonstrate that the existence of the STGMU has significantly deterred gang activities on
a statewide level and have proven the value of an effective anti-gang strategy.
Inmates assigned to the STGMU have appealed their placement to the State Superior Courts and also to
the United States District Court. The courts have upheld the STGMU as a "nonpunitive unit assignment
designed to anticipate and prevent potential threats to ordinary prison operations." In a recent United
48
Security
States District Court opinion, the court granted summary judgment for the Department while upholding all
facets of the STGMU Program. This opinion is considered a major victory in affirming the Department’s
course of action regarding the management of Security Threat Groups. As of this date, the courts have
denied all inmate appeals of the STGMU placements.
Many states have used "punitive" segregation as a method to manage gang activity. The courts often frown
upon this method. Another method employed by several states is referred to as the "Divide and Conquer
Method," whereby gang members are scattered throughout the state. This method will work for a time,
but when a state reaches the "Gang Saturation Level," other strategies must be employed. Some states
which currently employ the gang strategies above have looked at their existing or developing gang problem and expressed interested in developing a program similar to New Jersey's STGMU Phase Program.
The New Jersey Department of Corrections will continue to maintain its stature as a national leader in the
management of disruptive gang members via the use of the Security Threat Group Management Unit.
Security
49
50
Security
Project Zero Tolerance
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Richard L. Stalder, Secretary
The Challenge
The potential for violence is always present in correctional settings. In secure juvenile facilities it can
loom even larger given the age and developmental stage of offenders housed there. The potential for violence is also intensified because youth in correctional settings are often the product of violent environments which make violent responses seem the norm, if not the only option.
To the degree that violence is present and tolerated in a juvenile institution, that practice reinforces negative behavioral patterns. A 1996 report issued by the U. S. Department of Justice expressed concern about
the perceived level of violence in Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities. The negative findings, in combination with the Department’s continued commitment to develop better and more effective ways of handling juvenile offenders, prompted the agency to develop a program to minimize violence in the juvenile
system.
The Plan
On August 1, 1996, Louisiana announced and began implementation of a plan to address offender-onoffender, staff-on-offender and offender-on-staff violence in the juvenile institutions. It was called
"Project Zero Tolerance (PZT): A Balanced Approach to Reducing Violence." The resolve was to break
the cycle of violence that many juveniles are caught in, by encouraging, teaching and demanding that
offenders and staff behave in ways that will minimize violence.
The word "balanced" in the project name was carefully chosen, and from the first day, project leaders reassured employees that minimizing violence would not mean giving up control. Neither was the intent to
Security
51
Project Zero Tolerance
prohibit necessary uses of force. The message was consistent: failure to use adequate force to control a
situation can be equally as dangerous and destabilizing as unnecessary and excessive uses of force. But,
with heightened awareness and additional skills, the need to use force to maintain order and control will
diminish.
On August 1, 1996, PZT was introduced at a Departmental meeting and a project memorandum was issued
with instructions to give it individually to all employees of the juvenile institutions. In the week that followed, the system was saturated with meetings and messages designed to raise consciousness, explain
issues and implementation plans and identify the consequences of failure to comply.
The wardens, division heads, high ranking security (majors and above) and a headquarters representative
attended roll calls and other staff gatherings to explain the initiative. The meetings followed a uniform
agenda developed by the wardens. During the week of implementation, employees were required to sign
verification that they had received the project memorandum, understood the intent of the project and
would uphold its goal of minimizing violence in the secure juvenile facilities.
Educating staff about PZT was only a first step in promulgating the plan. The wardens wrote and delivered letters about the initiative to juvenile offenders during dormitory meetings and mailed copies to the
juveniles’families. The Assistant Secretary/Office of Youth Development sent informational letters to the
juvenile judges.
Posters with PZT slogans supported the informational barrage; some designed to appeal to offenders
and/or their families and some to staff. They were placed conspicuously throughout the institutions, in living areas, the school, the dining hall, the infirmary and roll call rooms.
Implementation Activities
Implementation of PZT was guided by a project plan which defined eight objectives, established time lines
and assigned responsibility for specific actions. Objective #1 captured the project in a nutshell: "To
increase awareness of and demonstrate the Department’s commitment to the reduction of all acts of violence in the juvenile secure institutions. The message to be communicated to staff, juveniles, volunteers
and visitors will be Zero Tolerance for abusive behavior (offender/offender, staff/offender and
offender/staff), corporal punishment, unnecessary or excessive use of force, and offender acts of violence."
At the heart of PZT was a determination to develop a workforce trained and committed to the resolution
of conflict with a minimum of force; a workforce skilled in using problem-solving skills to avert physically violent confrontations. Wardens and other senior staff reviewed existing policy and the curricula
used in the basic officer training academy and in-service training. Based on these assessments and ongoing discussions with staff, the Department immediately offered refresher training in the use of force, the
disciplinary rules and procedures for juvenile offenders, communication skills and conflict resolution.
The agency tightened guidelines governing the use of mechanical restraints and chemical agents, and planning for additional training in topics like conflict resolution, defensive tactics and behavior management
began.
It was determined that routine access to ranking security and other supervisory staff could be helpful to
both offenders and the line staff who supervised them. The process was formalized and policy and practice were revised to require "PZT rounds," a schedule of daily visits (holidays and weekends included) by
52
Security
Richard L. Stalder
administrative and clinical/medical staff to housing and program areas. Wardens and other ranking unit
staff monitored the daily process. Internal audit teams and PZT team investigators checked for on-going
compliance.
Reporting and investigation of alleged abusive and assaultive behavior was centralized. A PZT "hotline,"
a 24-hour, toll-free telephone number for reporting allegations of abuse was established and publicized in
the facilities by memos and posters about PZT. Juveniles’ parents were also given the telephone number.
The line rang to a central PZT investigations office established at headquarters. Dedicated PZT lines were
set up in the dormitories and juveniles calling the line used a generic pin number to maintain anonymity.
A key to the project’s successful implementation was designation of PZT investigators; staff trained and
assigned primarily to investigate allegations of abuse or unnecessary use of force. A PZT Supervisory
Investigative Team, comprised of two retired state troopers with extensive training and work experience
in conducting investigations, was hired and assigned to the Secretary’s office to monitor and investigate
allegations of abuse. The team also coordinated PZT activities among investigators already in the juvenile institutions and provided enhanced training in investigative techniques.
Well before PZT was implemented, the employee rulebook included a clear prohibition against "abuse of
inmates, corporal punishment or use of unnecessary or excessive force." Penalties for an administrative
finding of guilt included reassignment, reduction in pay, demotion in rank, suspension for up to 90 days
without pay and dismissal. When PZT was launched, the agency adopted a uniform response to employees believed to have used unwarranted force. If preliminary investigation determined that an allegation of
abuse was credible, the wardens were instructed to place the employee(s) immediately on some form of
leave pending investigation and final disposition through the employee disciplinary process. Appropriate
cases would also be referred to the district attorney for possible prosecution.
In addition, the Employee Assistance Plan brochure and other informational documents for employees
were revised to refer to acts of violence and the availability of resources to assist in behavior and anger
management.
A procedure was put in place for on-going distribution of PZT information to incoming offenders, and PZT
was added to the juvenile offender orientation manual. The Department also issued a revised and simplified brochure explaining the offender grievance procedure, which can be used to appeal decisions or
actions that seem unfair to a juvenile. Staff distributed the brochures in the dorms and explained their contents. Alternatives to violence programming for offenders was enhanced. Offenders were also made to
understand that those determined to have committed acts of physical violence faced not only loss of privileges but also the possibility of referral to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
Summary
Project Zero Tolerance began with an articulation of policy and explanation of expected practice and was
supported by extensive training for staff and juveniles and appropriate sanctions for those who refused to
comply. Gradually, "PZT" has become a common term in the agency’s lexicon. The practices described
above continue and the project’s elements and intent have been, for the most part, internalized. In the view
of one project leader, "... the institutions have basically undergone a change in their culture."
Initially, as the agency worked to change attitudes and behavior, there was a lot of disciplinary activity
Security
53
involving both staff and offenders. That has changed. Also changed are the number and nature of violent
incidents. There are fewer documented incidents and, among those, fewer significant injuries.
As early as January 1998, a report from the Louisiana State University Office of Social Service Research
and Development, noted that subjective information obtained from interviews with offenders supported
agency data suggesting reductions in allegations of unnecessary use of force by staff.
The Department continues to monitor progress and find ways to sustain the program, and the major emphasis has shifted. The success of PZT has laid the foundation for a new initiative, YouthCARE, which is
basically a redesign of the juvenile system with the intent of refining and creating consistency among institutions in program areas like medical and mental health, education and social services. Stay tuned. We’ll
tell you more about that one in a couple of years.
54
Security
Chapter 3
Rehabilitation and
Programming
55
56
Non-Secure Drug Treatment Program
Florida Department of Corrections
Michael W. Moore, Secretary
Sharon was 23 when she was sentenced for the first time for a drug-related crime -- one year of probation
for possession of crack cocaine in 1985. She moved on to larceny and grand theft to help support her habit,
and landed in state prison in 1991 as a habitual offender. During her prison time, she was sentenced to a
12 month full-service residential Therapeutic Community program, the most intensive and restrictive drug
treatment program the Florida prison system has to offer. And it worked, for a while. Sharon was drug
free for approximately five years, but then she relapsed. In 1997, she was sentenced to two years of probation for cocaine possession and grand theft, but the judge ordered her to serve six months of that probation in one of Florida’s Non-Secure Drug Treatment (NSDT) programs, a move that changed her life.
Today Sharon works full time and attends school full time. She will earn her bachelor’s degree from the
University of West Florida in Social Work in two semesters and is expecting to be named a minister in her
church soon. She says she hopes to specialize in working with kids with substance abuse problems,
because she’s been there and survived.
Program Purpose and Background
It is estimated that more than 67% of the offenders on community supervision in Florida are substance
abusers. Unfortunately, affordable programs that offer substance abuse treatment for offenders on community supervision are either scarce or unavailable in most communities. In response to this problem, the
Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), Bureau of Substance Abuse Program Services contracts with
community treatment agencies to provide the Non-Secure Drug Treatment Program (NSDT Program).
The program gives circuit court judges an alternative to sending offenders with drug or alcohol problems
to prison and provides these community control or probation offenders with more intensive supervision
than ordinary outpatient counseling or short-term, in-patient (28-day) treatment. The program puts the
57
focus on the offender’s substance abuse problem and how to control it. No sex offenders or those with
severe psychological problems are accepted into the program. Specific targeted populations are probationers and community controlees with an evident substance abuse problem who violate with new drug
offenses or other criminal charges, or who violate with technical violations indicative of a substance abuse
problem. Also targeted are offenders who score within the discretionary range on Florida’s Sentencing
Guidelines up to 30 months state prison incarceration and whose background indicates a substance abuse
problem. All offenders accepted into the program must be referred by a Florida Circuit Court judge by
written court order as a special condition of probation or community control. No other form of supervision
is allowed.
The 22 NSDT programs are located throughout Florida and provide an average of 60 treatment beds in
each facility. This program is unique not only because of its content, but also in its length and affordability. Many drug programs for offenders are about 28 days, which is rarely enough time to help a user with
a long history of substance abuse problems. The NSDT program is six months long and affordable. The
cost of the program in Fiscal Year 1998-99 was $34.89 per day, while the cost to keep an offender in prison
for a day was $52.26, saving taxpayers more than $17 per day per offender. Offenders don’t pay until they
start working, and the state picks up part of the tab. Following completion of the program, the offender is
generally still on supervision, and an aftercare program is available.
How It Works
This is how the program works. An offender is put on probation or community control and is ordered by
the circuit court to participate in the NSDT program. His or her offense (the program is co-ed for counseling and treatment only) is generally drug related. In fact, the top five offenses for those admitted to
NSDT in 1999 were drug possession, drug sale, purchase or manufacture, grand theft, burglary of a structure and stolen property, in that order.
The six-month program is divided into two parts: intensive drug and/or alcohol treatment (first two
months) and employment/re-entry (last four months). The offender lives at the facility during the entire
six-month program. For the first 30 days, offenders may have no outside contact. The following month,
family members may visit every Saturday for four weeks, participating in counseling sessions with the
offender. When they "graduate" to the employment/re-entry phase, the offender is allowed to look for work
and must find a job. Part of his or her wages must go to victim restitution and program costs. Once they
are working 40 hours per week, they can start to earn furloughs of from eight to 24 hours, but they may
only earn a furlough to the residence of the individual who has participated in counseling with them.
The intensive treatment component of the program includes at least ten hours of drug treatment weekly,
and focuses on three main areas: addiction education, life management skill-building and relapse prevention. Addiction education attempts to break down the offender’s denial processes and other defense mechanisms and seeks to get the offender to reexamine his or her values and relationships and relapse and
recovery patterns. Life Management skill building is designed to show the offender how to recognize and
avoid "triggers" for his or her addictive behavior. Relapse prevention is explored since relapse is widely
acknowledged as a recurring part of the recovery process.
The employment/re-entry component consists of a minimum of six hours of drug treatment weekly, and
requires the offender to participate in treatment activities before or after work, and to secure full time
employment. This component continues focusing on the three learning areas addressed in the intensive
58
Michael W. Moore
treatment component, with an eye toward reintegrating the offender into the community through employment and a plan for continuing sobriety. Developing educational and vocational skills are also encouraged
during this phase.
More Successes and Fewer Recommitments
The offender may walk away at any time, but most stay. Between 1991 and June 30, 1999, 18,948 offenders were released from the NSDT programs. About half, 10,105 (53.3%), successfully completed the program; 7,466 (39.4%) failed the program and 1,377 (7.2%) were terminated for administrative reasons like
medical conditions or transfers. Rates of program completion range from a low of 40.5% to a high of
70.5%. The FDOC currently has 22 non-secure drug treatment programs with approximately 1,200 offenders enrolled. (All statistics in this article can be found in the footnoted publication or by calling the DC’s
Bureau of Research and Data Analysis (850) 488-1801.)
Offenders can fail the program for a variety of reasons: sexual interaction with other participants, physical violence, alcohol or drug possession on their person or in their possession, positive drug tests, absconding and general disciplinary problems. The average amount of time it takes before an offender fails the
program is 79 days, so offenders are obviously given every opportunity to make it work.
Program Results by Recommitment Status (1991-1999)
Program Results
Success
Failure
Other
Total
Prison
1,725 (17.0%)
2,442 (32.7%)
333 (24.1%)
4,500 (23.7%)
Supervision
1,978 (19.5%)
1,973 (26.4%)
300 (21.7%)
4,251 (22.4%)
No Recommitment
6,402 (63.3%)
3,051 (40.8%)
744 (54.0%)
10,197 (53.8%)
Total
10,105
7,466
1,377
18,948
As the table shows, of the more than 10,000 offenders who have successfully completed the program since
1991, 63.3% have never returned to prison or supervision. Of the 7,466 who failed the program, only
40.8% have remained free of prison or supervision. Overall, 83% of successful completers have had no
recommitment to state prison. More than 92.2% of successful program completers are not recommitted to
prison or supervision during their first year after completion. That figure drops to 53.7% after two or more
years. But only 20.8%, even after two years, are recommitted to prison. In general, the older the offender
is, the more likely he or she is to complete the program and to stay out of prison. Among those ages 19
and under, only 36.1% successfully completed the program, while 58.4% of those ages 35-39 and 68.8%
of those ages 50-54 completed successfully. Recommitments also vary by age. Among those 19 and under,
29.3% have been recommitted to state prison, compared to only 21.9% of those age 35-39 and 13.8% of
those age 50-54.
Expanding and Administering the Program
Florida began this program in 1991 as a pilot project in a few communities. It was readily accepted by probation officers, offenders and the judiciary because it allows the offender to satisfy sentencing requirements while continuing to earn wages in the community, enabling them to pay victim restitution and to
earn money to maintain themselves and their families. When they start working, they start paying.
Specifically, offenders pay court costs, cost of supervision, victim restitution, room and board to the facility, reimbursement for their physical exam and the costs of any drug tests administered.
59
Recognizing the success of the pilot project in 1991, the FDOC proceeded to expand the program, duplicating it in other communities throughout the state. The programs were replicated with numerous vendors
by using a competitive bid process. The FDOC established a "Non-Secure Program Manual" that clearly
defines all operational aspects of the program and contains the history of the program, mission statement,
program objectives, philosophy of treatment and a standardized list of services. The quality control section provides for the enforcement of consistent programming throughout the state. This manual was then
incorporated into the bid process used to contract vendors who are able to provide the program.
ACA Award
Others see the program as successful as well. The American Correctional Association will award the
FDOC the "Exemplary Offender Program Award" for its Non Secure Drug Treatment Program at its annual summer training conference in San Antonio, Texas.
Program Success and Failure from FY94-95 through FY98-99
Fiscal Year (7/1-6/30)
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
Success
1,140 (47.6%)
1,628 (51.0%)
1,804 (53.1%)
1,929 (59.6%)
1,826 (58.2%)
Failure/Other
1,250 (52.3%)
1,562 (48.9%)
1,592 (46.8%)
1,306 (40.3%)
1,310 (41.7%)
Total
2,390
3,190
3,396
3,235
3,136
As the table shows, the success rate of the program generally continues to climb, and with it a corresponding number of offenders who are learning to cope with their drug problems and their lives without resorting to crime. The Florida Department of Corrections believes that the Non Secure Drug Treatment
Program is in keeping with our mission of ensuring public safety while also saving taxpayers money by
diverting offenders away from prison and toward effective treatment.
60
Correctional Recovery Academy
Indiana Department of Corrections
Edward Cohn, Commissioner
The Correctional Recovery Academy (CRA) is a federally funded, long-term treatment program which utilizes a cognitive-behavioral approach to treat offenders with substance abuse issues. The Correctional
Recovery Academy operates as a therapeutic community (TC) on the grounds of the Westville Correctional
Facility. Westville Correctional Facility is a medium-security facility that houses approximately 2,700
male offenders. Currently, 194 offenders are involved in the CRA program.
Substance abuse is a well-documented, contributing cause of criminal behavior. Statistics vary on the percentage of those incarcerated that have a substance abuse problem. Typically it is 80-85%. The CRA
approach is to help this group of offenders challenge their personal thoughts and beliefs in regards to their
behavior. Through this program they can then learn a more effective way to handle their choices (to commit or not commit a crime). If successful in a small group of offenders, the program could be expanded
to deliver services to a greater number of offenders.
The Concept
The CRAprogram is based on the principle that all staff members, custody, counselors and chaplains, who
influence the offenders’ daily lives, should also assist in their treatment. This concept is known as a
Therapeutic Community. The offenders involved are separated from the general population. The offenders go through the process of change together, since it is much easier to go through the growth change
process with the help of others than alone.
Those Eligible
Because of recent legislation concerning time cuts, only offenders who have between eight and 18 months
61
Correctional Recovery Academy
left of their sentence are eligible for the program. The offender cannot have any detainers or warrants. He
must be released to the streets. And of course, the offender must have a significant and documented history of substance abuse. The average age of the offender involved is 28. Their crimes range from property offenses to murder.
Staff
Staff involved in this program are both contract and state employees. Eleven substance abuse counselors
and the program director are contracted through Civi-Genics. All other staff are state employees. Several
in-service training sessions have been held to facilitate communication and accountability. The staff’s
relationship with and obligations to the community have also been emphasized.
The Program
The Correctional Recovery Academy utilizes a cognitive-behavioral approach which focuses on the thinking systems that underline the offenders’ criminal and drug related behavior. The approach in the academy is holistic, with a strong emphasis on teaching the offender skills directed toward the following:
• Avoiding further substance abuse and criminal behavior
• Anger management
• Interpersonal skills training
• Twelve step fellowship
• Problem solving
• Relapse prevention
• Intensive continuing recovery care planning
• Peer counseling
• Spirituality
All components of the academy are performance based. The offenders are held accountable for their
behavior. The therapeutic community requires offenders to:
• Take responsibility for their actions
• Participate in all program components
• Learn and demonstrate new skills
• Demonstrate adaptive social attitudes and behaviors
• Provide peer counseling
• Uphold the values and standards of the academy
This is not a "you fix me" program. Many different staff closely monitor the offenders’ efforts and level
of participation. Promotional advances through the three phases of programming are based on a treatment
team’s decision that considers many factors. The academy schedule is Monday through Friday in a twocycle sequence. The half of the academy that is not in CRA programming attends GED classes, a vocational computer course or is assigned to community job functions. Personal support groups are available
three evenings a week.
Testing
Once an offender has been accepted into the academy, he will be given a baseline drug test. The offender will not be removed from the program if he tests positive on the baseline test. If he tests positive on a
62
Edward Cohn
subsequent test, he will be removed from the program.
He is also given two behavioral-based tests when he enters the program. These tests are the Coping
Behavior Inventory (CBI) and the Criminal Sentiments Scale (CSS). The CBI was designed to assess
those behaviors and thoughts used by substance abusers triggered by external stimuli (people, places and
things) and internal stimuli (thoughts and feelings). Studies that have used the CBI as an outcome measure have shown the test to be a sensitive indicator to change. (Ito ET al., 1988; Shaw ET al., 1990). The
CSS was designed to assess those thoughts and attitudes that have been highly correlated to breaking the
law. It is divided into three domains: the first assesses attitudes toward the law, courts and police; the second assesses attitudes toward law violations; and the third assesses attitudes of identification with criminal peers and others. Because the academy is based on a cognitive behavior model, the CSS was a good
choice in instruments to measure those attitudinal changes that are most likely to occur as a result of an
intervention.
The offender has to pass a test at the completion of each phase of the program. He also has to go through
a peer and staff review. The offender has to give several presentations directly related to topics discussed
in a particular phase. Finally, the offender has to re-take the CBI and CSS tests.
A graduation ceremony is held to honor those who have completed the program. After the offender graduates from the program, he remains in the community until his release date, and becomes a mentor to those
who have not graduated.
Release
Prior to the offender being released from the facility, the counselors contact the offender’s parole agent.
The counselor provides the parole or probation officer a detailed recovery care plan which the offender is
expected to follow.
Future Plans
At this point, the Department does not track those offenders who have graduated from the academy. This
is an important component that will be implemented into the program. At this time, test results indicate
that the offenders’behaviors and thought process have been changed favorably through the TC experience.
Another component that will be implemented shortly is a survey that will be sent to all those offenders
who completed the program. This will provide valuable information and let staff know if the current curriculum is effective for the offender after he is released.
Accomplishments
In 1999, 329 offenders were admitted to the program. The following are the outcomes of those offenders:
• 25% were terminated for behavioral/treatment issues
• 6% voluntarily left the program
• 3% were transferred to another facility
• 9% received a time cut for GED completion
• 28.5% were released to probation/parole prior to program completion
• 28.5% graduated from the academy
63
Eighty-three offenders have taken the GED test and seventy-eight passed, for a success rate of 94%.
The post-test scores for the CBI dropped significantly. This decrease in score from pre- to post is an indicator of increased use of both cognitive and behavioral coping skills in response to external circumstances
(outside triggers) and internal mood states (inside triggers) to prevent, avoid or control urges, cravings and
resumed use of alcohol or drugs. The CSS post-test scores indicate significant positive pro-social changes
in attitude for offenders who have completed the program. It is evident from the analysis of these measures that offenders who completed the program were found to have significant shifts in attitudes from
criminal thinking to more pro-social norms. Such evidence demonstrates that the CRA is having a positive effect on offenders in relation to reducing the risk to recidivate.
Conclusion
It is the Department’s belief that this intensive, residential substance abuse program improves the offenders’chances for successful reintegration back into his community. This belief has led to expansion of the
program to a second site, the Rockville Correctional Facility, a medium-security facility for women. The
CRAprogram has had a positive change in the offenders’thought process and behaviors. Outcome measures data for graduate offenders who have returned to the community will be collected to verify this conclusion.
64
Mental Health Treatment Unit
Edward L. Cohn, Commissioner
History and Overview
In 1995, the Indiana Department of Corrections (INDOC), in conjunction with Human Rights Watch,
determined that there was a direct need for mental health treatment for offenders who were housed in the
state's two super-maximum-security housing units (SHU). Some of these offenders were placed on these
units due to disruptive and assaultive behaviors that could be directly attributable to a severe mental illness. Indiana INDOC, in conjunction with health services contractor, Prison Health Services, developed
the Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) and placed it on the grounds of the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility at Carlisle, Indiana.
The unit is a retrofitted standard housing unit, with single person cells and televisions provided for all
offenders upon arrival. Requirements for placement on the unit consist primarily of a diagnosis of serious
and persistent mental illness, adequate intellectual functioning to enable participation in programming, a
willingness to participate in programming and a need for maximum-security confinement. The unit officially opened in July 1998. Since that time, 58 offenders have been placed on the unit; 40 continue treatment, ten have been removed due to inability to adjust to the treatment milieu, and eight have been
released having completed their sentences.
The unit is considered extremely successful as measured by comments from custody staff who previously had worked with these offenders in the SHU. The project received the Indiana Correctional
Association's Program of the Year award. The success of the program is attributable to the cohesive team
approach to treatment; overwhelming support from INDOC administration; dedicated staff; and the careful selection of offenders who are willing to make meaningful changes in their lives.
65
Purpose and Mission
The purpose of the RTU is primarily to treat offenders who suffer from a serious and debilitating mental
illness to the extent that it prohibits them from functioning effectively in general population. Initially the
intention was to obtain offenders from the SHU. However, since the opening of the unit, several referrals
have come from other facilities throughout the state. The referred offenders have been identified by staff
at those facilities who recognized the difficulties and obviated problematic consequences for them due to
their mental illnesses.
The RTU is considered an intermediate care mental health facility. It falls on the mental health facility continuum between inpatient/state hospital and group home/residential treatment settings. An intensive daytreatment oriented program is utilized. Acute exacerbation of mental illness, decompensated individuals
and medically unstable individuals are referred to more intensive treatment areas. Individuals who have
mental health issues that are not of the magnitude requiring residential treatment are seen by outpatient
practitioners.
To qualify for admission to the RTU, the offender must have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness
on Axis I as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV).
While the presence of an Axis II diagnosis does not preclude someone from placement on the RTU, a sole
or primary diagnosis on Axis II does. The majority of illnesses treated on the RTU are Schizophrenia,
Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder and Depressive Disorders (usually with psychotic features).
Mental health statutes in Indiana are followed in determining treatment guidelines. Because of this, the
RTU is a voluntary treatment regimen. Residents must be willing to abide by unit rules and guidelines,
take medication as prescribed and actively participate in the treatment milieu. Treatment typically lasts
from 24 to 30 months.
Treatment Team
The treatment team consists of a full-time psychologist, a half-time psychiatrist, a master’s level clinician,
two rehabilitation therapists, two to three nurses on two shifts (days and evenings), one to two custody
officers, an INDOC counselor, and an INDOC casework manager. All team members participate in the
development of the treatment plan, and have continual access to the goals for each resident. Treatment
plans are reviewed every 30 days in twice-weekly review meetings, with each member having responsibility for providing input into the performance of the individual toward his treatment goals.
Psychiatric and Psychological Services
The RTU utilizes a half-time board-certified psychiatrist. Upon arrival, the inmate/resident has an intake
assessment and a determination is made about the continuance of psychotropic medication. The psychiatrist sees the resident once every 30 days during his stay on the unit.
The psychological services of the RTU consist of group and individual psychotherapy, crisis intervention
and assessment. The foundation of therapeutic intervention is group therapy, which is efficient and can be
a powerful therapeutic paradigm. The function of individual therapy is to train individuals for adequate
group performance, identify particular needs and address issues that are not amenable to a group format.
Group therapy topics have covered such issues as: coping with hallucinations, medication issues, family
66
Edward Cohn
issues, responsibility, anger management, orientation to the RTU, life planning, etc.
The psychologist provides clinical supervision to the behavioral clinician, provides individual and group
therapy, presides over the twice-weekly case review team meetings, screens intake referrals and discharges
and is responsible for the leadership of the team. The behavioral clinician provides individual and group
therapy, performs intake assessments on assigned clients and assists in clinical direction.
Substance abuse staff who are employed in a separate program in INDOC provide substance abuse therapy. They are, however, included in the treatment team meetings and their input is included in developing
the treatment goals and evaluations.
Rehabilitation Therapy
The rehabilitation therapy program emphasizes physical and social skills, including socialization, communication, manual dexterity, gross motor skills, cooperation, reading and writing, hygiene and endurance.
The two therapists hold bachelor’s degrees with rehabilitation specialties. Upon arrival on the RTU, each
inmate/resident is given a rehabilitation assessment, which is included in the treatment plan. Typical rehabilitation activities include volleyball, weightlifting, art, board games, education, social skills training,
assertiveness training, communication skills and hygiene skills.
Nursing Services
Two to three nurses are on each of the day and evening shifts. There is generally at least one registered
nurse per shift, with the others being licensed practical nurses. Their primary functions are to dispense
medications, perform nursing assessments (i.e., blood pressure, blood sugar, screening complaints, etc.)
and provide one-to-one interactions as needed and appropriate.
Counselor and Casework Manager
These two individuals provide daily needs of the residents that are primarily related to INDOC issues such
as directing transfers, provision of commissary, authorizing cell changes, razor restrictions, etc. They are
also responsible for integrating the policies of INDOC and mental health statutes into a workable union.
Custody Staff
Custody staff are responsible for the safety and security of the milieu. They follow the treatment plan for
interventions, talk with residents as their symptoms develop, make observations and keep records of
behaviors and activities. They apply the integration of mental health interventions and corrections policies.
Operations
The RTU program is structured on a four-step format. The initial stage is Orientation and Assessment, and
generally lasts for three days. During this time, the new resident is restricted to his cell in order to gain a
protected understanding of how the unit operates, and to view activities on the unit without the pressures
of new people and activities. During this time he is given his initial orientation and intake assessment and
a treatment plan is developed. In phase one, the resident begins to participate in appropriate group and
individual activities. Meals are eaten in his cell, and commissary is limited to a purchase of $15 per week,
67
with no off-unit activities during this phase.
After a period of time, typically one to two months, if the resident is adhering to treatment and complying
with facility rules, he is promoted to phase two. In this phase, more intensive therapy is initiated, and direct
work on symptoms and behaviors is undertaken. Additional privileges are granted, and the resident is
allowed to eat meals at a community table. Off-unit activities, such as rehabilitation at the gymnasium,
are allowed. This phase typically lasts from 18-24 months.
Once a person’s treatment goals are achieved, he is considered by the treatment team for promotion to
phase three. This is the re-integration phase with a goal of gradual transition to life in general population,
or when his sentence is served, liberation. There is a ten-step re-integration, and the off-unit privileges
implemented are of increasing interaction with general population. These include: library privileges,
chapel services, meals at the dining hall, recreation with general population offenders, employment and
moving to a general population cell house with transition to outpatient care. This phase typically lasts four
to six months, with two weeks minimum between steps.
Conclusion
The RTU has successfully changed the behaviors of some previously "unmanageable" offenders. One of
the drawbacks to the present setup is the fact that the unit is a retrofitted cell house, lacking adequate space
for all of the additional activities. Conflicting room requirements for groups are a frequent scheduling
quagmire. Training in the needs of the mentally ill is absolutely essential for continued effective operation
and will be emphasized in the future. Non-clinical staff (custody, casework managers and counselors) have
performed exceptionally well in relating to offender/clients.
The team approach is the single most effective characteristic of the RTU. This helps eliminate burnout by
distributing the load among many competent professionals working with a very demanding population. It
also creates ownership among all the providers, knowing that they have input into how their jobs are to be
best performed. It also provides a mechanism of feedback that enables the most effective treatment interventions for a resistant and secretive group.
Consistent with current practice in mental health and given Indiana’s success thus far, it is anticipated that
similar programs will be implemented at other sites in our Department and across the country. It is clear
that both offenders and staff benefit from this approach.
68
The Hazeldon Foundation: Partnership for Recovery
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Commissioner
The Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Hazelden Foundation, the two largest chemical
dependency treatment providers in Minnesota, have formed a unique partnership. Through shared experiences, training, research and staff development, this partnership ensures appropriate and effective chemical dependency treatment for convicted offenders while incarcerated, and continuing care after release in
the community. This partnership will further the mission of both entities and promises to have a much
broader impact on chemical dependency recovery programming on a national and international level.
Background
The Hazelden Foundation of Center City, Minnesota, recently celebrated its 50th anniversary of providing
chemical dependency treatment programs, specialized training for professionals and support materials for
the recovering person, the treatment professional and supportive persons and organizations. The Hazelden
Foundation has highly developed treatment delivery and training expertise, offering a Masters Degree in
recovery science. Hazelden is a fully accredited educational institution and is the most proficient publisher
and distributor of chemical dependency recovery information in the world. The Foundation has also developed a remarkable referral service for clients who complete treatment and need community support.
The DOC has developed specific skills in treating the chemically dependent inmate, providing an atmosphere of hope and change for offenders and has retained staff who have developed corrections-related program materials that compliment those available through vendors such as the Hazelden Foundation.
The skills inherent in both entities compliment and fulfill the needs in the product development and service delivery of the other. The mutual interest of these two treatment delivery organizations to provide the
best possible treatment programming for chemically afflicted corrections clients points to the tremendous
69
The Hazeldon Foundation
promise of this partnership.
The Partnership
The partnership with Hazelden follows six separate but very integrated avenues including:
• Corrections chemical dependency program curricula
• Program materials for inmates and staff
• Training regimens for DOC staff in Hazelden facilities and Hazelden staff at DOC facilities
• Internship development in DOC programs; and
• Post-release programming and housing for recovering offenders
In addition, the partners will develop rigorous reporting and research protocols for all of these activities.
Following are descriptions of the different facets of the partnership development.
Curricula
There is a dearth of programming information in the chemical dependency treatment arena that directly
relates to a corrections-specific client. The DOC has promoted program development in all institutional
programs, especially in the inpatient chemical dependency program in the prison facility located at Lino
Lakes, Minnesota. This 242-bed facility provides treatment to both long- and short-term inmates. It provides an educational component for offenders who have entered the community and been returned to
prison for a violation of release terms through the use of chemicals. This program unit also has developed
programming for inmates with special emotional and mental health needs.
Through the partnership, curricula are being developed to incorporate a number of treatment components
for offenders. These components will ultimately be available to other correctional agencies and facilities
through the Hazelden Foundation Education Division as separate program enhancements, or in combination to develop new programs, or renew existing curricula. The components include, but are not limited
to:
• Assessment
• Criminal Thinking
• Anger Management
• Addictive Thinking
• Life Skills Training
• Relapse Prevention
• Aftercare or Post-Release Planning.
The curricula will also include extensive and comprehensive drug and alcohol education. One of the goals
of the curricula development is to make all of the components adaptable to short, medium, and long-term
programs in locked facilities.
Program Materials
Beyond the development of corrections-specific program curricula, the partnership recognizes the need for
inmate specific program materials to accompany the treatment components. Again, the expertise of the
Hazelden Foundation in educational material development and the expertise of the DOC staff in meeting
the needs of the inmate population make for a productive blend of skills and experience.
70
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass
Jointly, the two entities are developing materials for inmate use that will be cost effective for correctional
institutions, recognize and utilize the exploding potential for electronic media, and recognize the vast differences in reading and writing proficiencies across the entire incarcerated population.
Materials will be developed to address various reading skill levels and levels of comprehension and retention. Workbooks, exercises, reports and other inmate materials will be part of the array of educational tools
that will be developed as the result of this collaboration.
Staff Training
Hazelden Foundation has developed very effective, efficient and diverse training protocols for educating
new and existing chemical dependency treatment professionals. The partnership will utilize Hazelden's
existing training facilities to provide training for DOC employees in meeting continuing education requirements for treatment professionals. Hazelden staff will have access to DOC training to develop and maintain skills in addressing the needs of a youthful population of drug-affected clients. Jointly, the two organizations are developing training protocols to address the program components in the corrections curricula
previously described. This will provide skilled and experienced trainers to work with correctional agencies across the nation in using these curricula.
Internship Programs
As more students come to learn of the many chemical dependency treatment career opportunities in correctional settings, Hazelden will be able to offer internship experiences in DOC facilities. Hazelden is the
only chemical dependency treatment educational facility in the world to be able to train students in the
delivery of the corrections-specific curricula and to provide first-hand internship opportunities for students
in a correctional environment.
The students will bring to the DOC their energy and a new perspective on treatment program components.
The partnership also affords the DOC the opportunity to see potential employees at work in a prison treatment environment. This is a mutually beneficial opportunity that will provide remarkable resources to
both agencies for years to come.
Post Release Programming and Housing
One of the significant strengths of the Hazelden treatment program is the ability to assist clients in their
recovery in the community after primary inpatient treatment has concluded. This is accomplished through
the use of Hazelden’s proprietary Fellowship House halfway house program in St. Paul, Minnesota, and
the use of affiliated halfway houses across the United States. In addition, the network of recovering persons who are graduates of Hazelden's programs provide support and opportunity for those newly in recovery. Working jointly with Hazelden, the DOC is developing release planning objectives that include
halfway house support for more inmates than are currently served by correctional halfway houses.
The Hazelden Foundation and the DOC also are discussing the potential for joint ventures in the community that will establish housing for released offenders. The residents will agree to live free of chemicals
and submit to random checks of their compliance. This housing would be available for offenders who do
not need the structure of a halfway house, or offenders departing halfway houses who need continued
housing. This venture would fill an enormous gap in the continuum of care provided to inmates.
71
Research
Hazelden's research team is renowned for quality chemical dependency research. This is a key area from
which the DOC will benefit greatly. Hazelden will assist the DOC in the development of research and outcome measures to analyze the effectiveness of corrections department chemical dependency treatment
activities. Ensuring that DOC programs have measurable results is a top priority for the department. With
research, the DOC will be able to determine if programs are achieving their goals, need to be modified or
should be eliminated with resources reallocated to another initiative. Hazelden’s vast research expertise
is invaluable to the DOC.
Conclusion
The public/private partnership formed by the Hazelden Foundation and the Minnesota Department of
Corrections is promising in many ways. It will greatly enhance treatment for Minnesota's correctional
population and has the potential to assist other corrections organizations around the world.
72
Faith-Based Programs Offer Hope for the Future
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Commissioner
People of faith who serve as leaders and mentors for inmates encourage positive change and make offenders realize they must take responsibility for their criminal behavior. Faith-based prison programs play an
important role in Minnesota’s correctional system and in systems throughout America.
A Fresh Look
The Minnesota Department of Corrections is taking a fresh look at religious programming for a number
of important reasons. First, there has been a tremendous diversity of religious practices in the offender
population. There are more than 1,000 different religious groups in the United States and they continue to
increase steadily. This tremendous diversity makes the traditional Catholic/Protestant prison chaplaincy
model obsolete. Traditions of the past whereby religious services are provided nearly exclusively in
Minnesota correctional facilities by ecclesiastically endorsed Catholic and Protestant chaplains have
changed dramatically.
Second, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, though overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,
spawned many lawsuits that demonstrated the need for equity and fairness in the arena of religion and prisons. Minnesota has adopted policies and procedures that uniformly address all religions. Those responsible for religious services in prison facilities are now called religious coordinators.
Finally, realizing the critical importance of linking offenders with the community, the Department has welcomed the increasing involvement of community-based individuals and groups and, in particular, faithbased volunteers.
73
Faith-Based Programs Offer Hope for the Future
Key Strategies
Minnesota’s review of faith-based programming has included a number of key strategies:
Citizens Advisory Committee – Realizing the importance of community involvement, the Interfaith
Committee for Spiritual Growth was formed. Chaired by former Minnesota Governor and Prison
Fellowship advocate Al Quie, the committee is broadly representative of a continuum of religious groups.
The committee provides the Department with valuable information and advice. One of the committee’s
primary responsibilities is to increase the involvement of the religious community in transitioning offenders from incarceration to the community.
"Rep" Groups – In order to respond to the increasing diversity of religious groups in the facilities, religious "rep" groups have been established in the institutions. Group members are inmates chosen by religious coordinators. Mutual understanding and respect among the various religions practiced in the facilities have resulted.
Religious Practices Committee – A Departmental committee comprised of the facilities’ religious coordinators, a security director and associate warden meets monthly to develop policy and review practices.
While providing an excellent forum for communication, these committees have also fostered consistency
in the Department regarding religious practices and activities.
Program Review
However, the most promising and meaningful outcome that has resulted from a fresh look at religious
practices is the potential of establishing faith-based programming in correctional facilities. Faith-based
programs give hope to those whose circumstances can seem hopeless. Specifically, Minnesota is planning
to implement the InnerChange program very soon at one of the medium-custody facilities. Operated by
Prison Fellowship, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative currently operates in Texas, Kansas and Iowa.
Modeled after a successful Prison Fellowship program founded in Brazil in 1973, the program includes
both institution and community phases.
In September 1999, a warden from one of our facilities and I visited the Jester II facility in Texas where
InnerChange is completing its third year. Operated in a separate living unit, it is a rigorous program with
a strict daily schedule. The Department provides security and Prison Fellowship provides and oversees all
programming, relying on a core paid staff and hundreds of volunteers. The program has three phases:
Phase I is designed to eliminate the thinking process which resulted in incarceration and rebuild the
offender’s value system to establish a solid foundation for productive growth.
Phase II tests the offender’s newly developed value system in many settings. Offenders work off-site
much of the day completing public service in the community.
Phase III reintegrates the ex-offender back into the community.
While InnerChange officials indicate it will be at least year 2001 before they have reliable data showing
how well the program works, changes observed in participating inmates are remarkable. It appears that
the program is changing offenders, preparing them to return to society, lowering recidivism and reducing
incarceration costs.
74
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass
Changed Offenders
I was personally most impressed with the individual experiences of the participants whose lives were
changed through the program. These men have incorporated into their daily lives altruistic ethics, virtues
and self-control that were all missing in their histories. Their personal hopes and dreams now involve
serving and helping others, productive work, responsibility and accountability.
Essential to InnerChange is its Phase III aftercare/transitional release program. It guarantees each offender employment, a place to live, a mentor and a supporting community church. The commitment, dedication and hard work provided by community religious volunteers in the Phase III are nothing short of amazing. The hand of friendship extended by each volunteer serves as a buffer against the many rejections
released offenders face. Having one person who supports the inmate’s effort to change makes it much easier to build a new life after prison.
Volunteer opportunities include mentoring, tutoring, providing employment after release, leading seminars
and other sessions, working with offenders’ families and helping to manage cases in prison and during
aftercare.
On a second trip to the Texas program, key Minnesota legislators from corrections funding and policy
committees of the House and Senate joined Department staff. This visit resulted in unanimous support for
implementing the program in Minnesota. This process is underway and we are looking forward to establishing a great InnerChange program in cooperation with Prison Fellowship.
Restorative Justice
InnerChange also incorporates the restorative justice approach to the criminal justice system. Consistent
with restorative justice principles, InnerChange ensures that the offender takes responsibility for the crime
and takes action to address the harm caused to the victim and the community. The involvement of the community in the form of faith-based program volunteers and mentors also reflects the philosophy of restorative justice.
Kairos Program
Minnesota is also exploring other faith-based initiatives such as the model program operated by Kairos
Prison Ministry in the maximum-custody prison in Tomoka, Florida. Similarly to InnerChange, the program is designed to help inmates learn personal and parental responsibility with reduced institutional violence and recidivism as the ultimate outcomes. Kairos participants live in a designated dormitory, work
in prison jobs and eat meals with the general population. But evenings and weekends are devoted to a rigorous schedule of study and group activity. Study curriculum focuses on anger, relationships, parenting,
communications, victim awareness, intolerance and other issues. Kairos also focuses on parental responsibilities of incarcerated fathers.
It is important to note that in both the InnerChange and Kairos programs, offender participation is voluntary and selection is nondiscriminatory. Provision is made for inmates of any or no faith.
75
Challenges
Implementation of faith-based programming in correctional facilities does not go unchallenged. However,
the challenges do not in any way come in the form of a reluctant religious community. To the contrary,
our experience in Minnesota has been that the religious community is very supportive and welcomes their
involvement and access to institutions. The real challenges to faith-based programs can come from within the corrections environment where the potential for new initiatives has been curtailed by enforcing stringent rules that exclude the very community from which we are seeking help.
The Future
I am convinced that the Minnesota Department of Corrections will implement new faith-based programs
that will be successful. An impressive cadre of incredibly committed and supportive religious volunteers
is on hand to assist the effort. These programs hold great promise for ensuring inmates leave our prison
system better off for it, never to return again.
76
Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center
Introduction and Background
Adam Walsh. Megan Kanka. Polly Klass. Jacob Wetterling. The tragic cases of these children and other
victims of sexual predators pushed the issue of sexual predators to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. "Get tough" laws were passed and the criminal justice system was challenged to "deal with" these
worst of society’s criminals. Victims’ rights and advocacy groups raised their voices against violent and
personal crimes, developing a clear and heightened awareness of the effects of sexual and violent assaults.
In the decade of the 90’s, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (DRC) sex offender population almost tripled from 3,500 to over 9,000 inmates committed for sex offenses. At the same time
DRC was experiencing this dramatic increase, state legislatures around the country were enacting sex
offender registration and notification laws (based on Megan’s Law) to protect the public from sexual predators.
Meeting the challenge head on, DRC developed and opened the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center
(SORRC) at the Madison Correctional Institution in London, Ohio in 1995. SORRC was designed to
accomplish two fundamental goals:
•To complete sex offender-specific assessments on every sex offender committed to DRC’s custody, focusing on identifying levels of risk to reoffend and developing treatment plans
• To provide psychoeducational programming for all sex offenders, emphasizing victim awareness and
relapse prevention.
A parallel program has since been instituted at the Ohio Reformatory for Women for female sex offenders.
77
Background
The Department began developing and implementing institution-based residential and outpatient sex
offender programs in the late 1980s. As these programs evolved and the number of sex offenders in institutions significantly increased, it became evident that if society was to be protected, an organized system
of services was required to ensure that targeted inmates received effective programming in a timely manner.
SORRC became the centerpiece of DRC’s system of sex offender services. Pertinent information regarding the risk to reoffend and treatment needs is collected and documented at intake, and follows each sex
offender through the institutional system and on through parole planning and release. Inmates are identified as sex offenders at the Department’s two reception centers. An inmate is classified as a sex offender
if he or she is either currently committed for a sex offense or has a prior felony sex offense conviction in
the past 15 years. Once the reception process is completed, the offenders are transferred to the SORRC
unit at the Madison Correctional Institution or to a unit at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. In 1999, over
1,300 inmates were processed through SORRC.
The Assessment Process
SORRC’s assessment process includes the following components:
• Risk assessment
• Psychological testing
• File and collateral information review
• Clinical interview
Once these components are completed, all information is described in an assessment report and synthesized into an analysis of the level of risk to sexually reoffend and the delineation of a treatment plan. The
assessment report is meant to "paint a picture" of each offender’s personality functioning in regards to their
patterns of sex offending.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory –2 (MMPI 2) is administered to all SORRC inmates.
A sexual history questionnaire is completed and a set of attitudinal tests is further administered to explore
their views on gender roles, rape myths and child molestation. Other tests may be recommended and given
on an individual basis, such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) or the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R).
There has been a considerable amount of research on sex offender risk assessment. The leadership of
SORRC makes a concerted effort to maintain the most current knowledge of that research literature to
ensure that the assessment process is valid and reliable.
The risk assessment process utilizes two instruments that are widely accepted throughout the United States
and Canada: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) (Epperson, Kaul, &
Hessleton, 1999) and the Static 99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999). The MnSOST-R is an actuarial, empirically based measure that scores 16 variables to identify a sex offender’s risk to reoffend. The Static 99 is
also an actuarial measure that incorporates ten empirically derived risk factors that assess the risk of sexual and/or violent recidivism up to 15 years. The level of risk is designated as either low, low-medium,
medium-high or high risk.
78
While conducting the assessments, clinicians may make collateral contacts after reviewing the inmate’s
file. In preparing for the clinical interview they want to have as much accurate information as possible at
hand, understanding that most sex offenders engage in denial, portraying themselves in a favorable manner. Clinicians interview the offender, based on the assumption that he or she is a highly unreliable source
of information.
Once the clinician has studied the file, gathered collateral information, completed the risk assessment and
analyzed testing results, the clinical interview is conducted. The assessment report organizes and synthesizes all information and findings, leading to a clinical formulation and assessment of risk. The report concludes with a section on recommendations that specifies treatment goals. Basic treatment goals for sex
offenders are:
• Admitting Guilt
• Accepting Responsibility
• Empathizing with Others
• Identifying Deviant Cycle
• Relapse Prevention and
• Making Restitution.
Additional individualized goals may be added to the treatment plan when the offender enters a treatment
program.
Psychoeducational Programming
Psychoeducational programming refers to a 20-hour regimen of intervention strategies designed to inform
sex offenders about pro-social beliefs and attitudes. The basic purpose of this programming is to assist the
offenders in correcting certain deficits or maladaptive behaviors. The regimen is actually a set of nonthreatening presentations and discussion in a classroom setting. The basic goals of SORRC’s psychoeducational programming are:
• To develop an understanding of the wrongfulness of sexual assault
• To develop an understanding of victim awareness
• To develop an understanding of destructive behavior cycles
• To develop an understanding of how systems of denial work
• To learn about DRC sex offender programs and services
The Victim Awareness curriculum of psychoeducational programming is considered the most important
component, as the focus of these interventions is to bring the offenders to an understanding of the effects
of their crimes on their victims. They learn about the Rape Trauma Syndrome, common feelings experienced by victims of sexual violence and the effects of child sexual abuse. Offenders also learn to distinguish between certain myths and facts regarding sexual assault. As they absorb the information presented in the classes, distortions about children, women, sexuality and victims are corrected.
Facing Denial
Denial is a very powerful force in a sex offender’s view of his or her victimizing behavior. Offenders
either deny or seriously minimize their deviant behavior. Denial is a formidable obstacle to treatment, or
at the least, to getting the offender to take responsibility for what he or she has done. In psychoeducational
programming, offenders learn about systems of denial, i.e., the purposes denial and minimizations serve,
79
how they distort reality, the different types of denial and how denial perpetuates victimizing behavior.
Destructive Behavior Cycles is perhaps, the most extensive area of teaching in psychoeducational programming. It covers three major areas: the Sexual Assault Cycle, Thinking Errors and Relapse Prevention.
Offenders learn about how thoughts, feelings, fantasies, perceptions and states of mind work together in
chains or cycles that lead to victimizing behaviors. This information teaches offenders how their personalities function when they commit sexual assaults.
This curriculum also teaches offenders how erroneous thinking patterns and cognitive distortions create a
reality in which it makes sense to the offender to commit sexual crimes. In acquiring this knowledge they
are presented with a new frame of reference to which they can compare their own views of the world and
thinking that supports sexually assaultive behavior.
Relapse Prevention
Relapse Prevention is an essential component of sex offender treatment and is considered a required section of psychoeducational programming. Inmates learn that a sex offense is not an impulsive act, and that
based on their understandings of destructive behavior cycles and thinking errors, they can intervene in that
selfsame cycle and stop victimizing behavior. Offenders learn that "there is no cure" for sexually aggressive behavior, but that they can develop the capacity to manage their thoughts, feelings, and behavior. The
bottom line message is: "Maintenance is forever."
At the end of the regimen of psychoeducational programming, the inmates receive an introduction to the
scope and availability of DRC’s sex offender programs. These classes also address such issues as who
needs treatment, what prison sex offender programs include, community alternatives to treatment in prison
and parole requirements for participation in treatment while on community supervision.
Throughout psychoeducational programming, offenders are pre- and post-tested on the areas of instruction. The testing not only helps determine what the offenders learn, but can also detect a positive shift in
their views of women, children and sexuality.
Community Service
Community service has become an important component of SORRC. As part of DRC’s Restorative Justice
initiative, community service emphasizes the need for offenders to give back to their communities. This
is particularly relevant for sex offenders, whose victimization has been so personal, and in many cases,
extreme in nature. Community service further represents the idea that a criminal justice system must
incorporate a framework that addresses victims rights and needs in very real ways. SORRC inmates complete over 4,000 hours per year of community service work, primarily for victim advocacy groups and
agencies. Agencies include the Ohio Coalition against Sexual Assault, the Sexual Assault Response
Network, the Open Shelter (for the homeless), Hidden Treasures (for victims of domestic violence), the
Project Woman Rape Crisis Center, Ohio Parents for Drug-Free Youth and a number of churches.
Conclusion
Sexual assault is a multi-factored behavioral phenomenon that has been identified as a leading social and
criminal justice problem. In Ohio, the number of incarcerated sex offenders has increased exponentially
80
throughout the 90’s. DRC has responded to this problem by designing a system of sex offender programs
and services with SORRC as its central component. In an effort to address the problem of sexual assault,
DRC ensures that all inmates committed for sex offenses undergo a sex offender specific assessment that
describes factors that influence the risk to reoffend. This information is used to develop treatment plans,
and most importantly, to provide information to guide planning for community supervision. At the same
time, SORRC further ensures that all sex offenders receive important information regarding victims, the
dynamics of their sexually aggressive behavior and ways to stop that behavior.
81
82
Bill Johnson Correctional Center Regimented
Treatment Program
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
James L. Saffle, Director
There are boot camps, treatment centers, work camps and reintegration programs, but the Bill Johnson
Correctional Center (BJCC) has brought all of these programs together and has included mandatory education and voluntary aftercare programs. The Regimented Treatment Program (RTP) has innovatively
combined varying treatment modalities into a cohesive, equally weighted treatment model since 1995.
The RTP is constantly evolving and the acceptable standard for operations continues to rise.
Program Rationale
The number of offenders incarcerated nationally for drug-related crimes is staggering. According to
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring data (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1999), between one-half
and three-quarters of all arrestees tested in 23 cities around the country had drugs in their systems at the
time of arrest. About half of those charged with violent or income-generating crimes test positive for more
than one drug. In the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), 25.6% offenders (ODOC Research
& Evaluation Unit 10-29-99) are serving sentences for drug crimes alone. It is estimated that 85% of all
offenders incarcerated have drug/alcohol-related issues.
From August of 1996 to December 1998 the ODOC Programs Unit tracked 2,619 offenders who were
assessed as having severe substance abuse problems, yet received no substance abuse treatment during
their current incarceration. This comparison group had a criminal recidivist rate of 29.25% 28 months
after discharge. By addressing criminal behavior and substance abuse, the RTP's goal is to reduce recidivism for drug offenders.
Planning on the RTP design was initiated in 1990 at the Department and regional office level. Specific
facility planning began in February 1995 and is ongoing. The program consists of three phases and com-
83
Bill Johnson Correctional Center Regimented Treatment Program
bines unit management and military regimentation within a therapeutic community (TC) model. The RTP
offers a holistic approach to breaking the cycle of substance abuse, criminal behavior and incarceration
that is facing society. Change is not always everlasting, which is where the transitional services of RTP,
reintegration and aftercare, serve a vital role. Continuity of care from the institution to the community is
associated with positive outcomes for prevention of relapse and criminal recidivism (Swartz et al., 1996).
Program Design
Bill Johnson Correctional Center is a minimum-security facility housing 443 male inmates. The primary
mission of the facility is to provide a comprehensive regimented substance-abuse treatment program for
the inmates. The primary programmatic mission is to provide education. The program structure allows
offenders to progress through the program as their level of awareness, responsibility and pro-social behavior reflects the offenders' commitment to change. Due to the program design as a high structure unit, BJCC
was built with medium- security standards including double-razor wire fencing and an armed perimeter.
Since opening, BJCC has designed and continues to modify the components of the RTP using a program
development committee. Program development meetings not only include security and treatment staff but
also include offenders to promote "ownership" in the program. These meetings are always a session of
brainstorming and idea sharing utilizing the Total Quality Management Process. Since 1996 BJCC has
received seven Governor's Awards for Excellence for the development and implementation of the therapeutic community, facility garden project, apprenticeship program for baking and cooking, intern program,
cedar eradication project, facility tree farm and the cardboard recycling project.
To ensure that employees consistently promote the ideals of the program, yearly training is given in antisocial personality disorder and cognitive/behavioral treatment theory. Because of effective program
design, regular unannounced drug testing, canine drug searches and staff commitment, BJCC can make a
claim unique among other correctional substance abuse programs - a drug free facility. Since opening in
September 1995, only 11 program participants have tested positive for illegal substances of the 4,236 tests
conducted to date.
The regimented program consists of three phases beginning with 12 weeks of regimented treatment. The
following nine months include participation in therapeutic community, skills training and public works
projects scheduled during the day with evening educational and substance abuse treatment programs.
Public works projects include U.S. Wildlife Refuge crews, Department of Transportation crews and several other city, county and state projects.
To reinforce the concepts of restorative justice, eligible RTP offenders participate in public work projects
and speak-out programs for area schools and at risk youth who are under court supervision. Citizens living in communities near BJCC have benefited from the over 3,600 hours of community service projects
provided each month by the center's prisoner public works program.
After successful completion of the institutional program, eligible trainees are transferred to designated
community correctional centers to receive a minimum of six months of reintegration programming. Those
trainees ineligible for lower security transfer receive reintegration programming at BJCC. Aftercare is
provided for one year upon discharge or release to a suspended sentence or parole.
The RTP is a one-year multi-modal treatment program designed to impact substance abuse offenders
84
James L. Saffle
between the ages of 18 and 35. The following is a brief overview of the program design:
Phase I - High Structure (three months)
Assessments (treatment, education, and health)
Regimentation/Drill and Ceremony
Anger Management
Pre-Contemplation Addiction Awareness
Institutional Work Detail
Therapeutic Community Orientation
Phase II - Main Treatment (six months)
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Programs
Education
Therapeutic Community
Institutional and Public Works Details
Relapse Prevention
Interns (offender mentors/program facilitators)
Phase III – Reintegration (six months)
Therapeutic Community
Institutional and Public Works Details
Job Readiness
Relapse Prevention
Family Programming
Aftercare (12 months)
Assistance in accessing existing community resources
Intervention if needed
Monitoring and data collection
Program Outcome
In a preliminary study performed by the ODOC Programs Unit, RTP graduates who had completed the full
year of aftercare and had been released from custody for at least 28 months have a survival rate of 88.47%.
While results may be preliminary, the graduates of the RTP showed an 18.7% increase in survival rate over
the comparison group. After 16 months no additional graduates returned to prison through 28 months
though the control group continued to recidivate. With the return of these men as contributing members of
society, the benefit to the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma, law abiding citizens who live in their communities, and the offender's family is beyond measure. In March of 1999, researchers from the University
of Cincinnati’s Division of Criminal Justice, using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory,
assessed BJCC. Over 150 correctional programs have been assessed using this inventory, which measures
the degree to which a program meets the principles of effective intervention. According to Edward J.
Latessa, Ph.D., Professor and Head of the Division of Criminal Justice, "This program was the highest
scoring prison-based substance abuse program we have ever assessed."
85
Bill Johnson Correctional Center Regimented Treatment Program
Program Replication
The RTP can easily be adapted to a variety of correctional settings. In Oklahoma, a former three-month
boot camp program for female offenders and a six-month substance abuse treatment program for males are
being expanded into a 12-month program utilizing the RTP concepts of work, treatment, therapeutic community, education and regimentation. A community correctional center and a work center have also adopted the RTP concept, with a modification of regimentation and a decrease in program length.
Success for a program of this magnitude must have support from the agency, legislature, courts and community. Continuity of care prepares the offender to reintegrate back into society upon completion, and
transitional services are essential for the success of the entire program. Support for ongoing services to
offenders completing a treatment program is often limited, if available at all. Obtaining these services may
be the greatest obstacle of all.
Criteria for a RTP should consider age, length of sentence, type of crime, criminal and substance abuse
history and the medical and/or psychological needs of the program participants. Selection of program participants should be based on an objective needs/risk assessment. The program should be flexible enough
to accept individuals who need the program but not hinder the program with excessive inappropriate placements. A system should be implemented for removing individuals refusing or failing the program.
The success of the program lies in many hands. Bill Johnson Correctional Center and Department of
Corrections staff are only a small part of the success of this program. Community and state leaders as well
as legislative and judicial members all play essential roles in the success of BJCC's Regimented Treatment
Program and the reduction of the recidivism rate in the State of Oklahoma.
86
Deerfield Correctional Center’s Assisted Living:
A Visionary Alternative
Virginia Department of Corrections
Ron Angelone, Director
Introduction
Older persons make up one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. population and across the nation,
and now correctional systems are experiencing a growth in the number of older inmates. Current sentencing laws have increased the number of inmates serving life or lengthy sentences. Additionally, inmates
55 and older at the time of commitment cause the total number of older offenders in the system to dramatically increase. This trend, referred to as "the graying of the prison population," requires correctional
systems to provide new levels of treatment, care and programming to accommodate the needs of an older,
less healthy population.
Correctional systems have historically served fairly young populations consisting primarily of 20 to 30year-old male offenders. Changing age demographics are posing new challenges. The U.S. Department
of Justice estimates that geriatric prisoners will make up 16% of the prison population over the next five
years, up from about 5% today. Few systems are geared to meet the housing, programming, food service
and medical needs of these inmates, according to the National Institute of Corrections. As early as 1976,
Virginia was providing special housing and programs for geriatric and handicapped offenders at Staunton
Correctional Center. This small program, limited to non-violent medium- and minimum-security inmates,
had been the only available placement.
The Staunton geriatric unit functioned primarily as a sheltered housing unit, protecting geriatric inmates
from the stresses of living and interacting with younger inmates. It lacked the medical staffing necessary
to provide the nursing care these offenders needed as they aged and became more infirm. Nevertheless,
the success of this program demonstrated the need and benefits of expanding geriatric and assisted living
housing for other segments of the population whom increasingly need this service.
87
Deerfield Correctional Center ’s Assisted Living
Background and National Perspective
The increased population of aging inmates and their long-term care needs was identified as a critical issue
four years ago. As part of its strategic plan, the Virginia Department of Corrections created Objective 3.2,
which called for development of a master plan to address long-term health care needs of the inmate population. As part of this planning process, the Deerfield Correctional Center, a centralized, statewide facility, was selected to become an assisted living facility. Deerfield is dedicated to assisted living care patients,
providing a cost-effective, organized, comprehensive solution to the special needs of this population.
Operating procedures, programs and custodial care are geared directly to the levels of care and specific
needs of geriatric and disabled offenders, rather than as an afterthought or adjunct to a larger general population.
Clearly, the emerging trend among correctional systems is to develop assisted living and skilled care facilities for this growing population with special health, dietary and programmatic needs. In spite of Virginia’s
early efforts in the 1970’s, the Department had failed to keep pace with the growing population, and the
conversion of the Deerfield Correctional Center to an assisted living facility was a timely and much-needed initiative.
Levels of Care
Geriatric and disabled offenders may require assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). These activities are defined as "the activities usually performed in the course of a normal day in the person’s life."
The level of care required in a given case is a function of the number of ADL’s for which the person
requires assistance as well as of the degree of skill involved in providing assistance. Activities of daily
living are listed and defined as follows:
Eating - assistance with feeding
Bathing - assistance with entering the shower or preparing to bathe
Dressing -assistance with proper placement of clothing, buttoning clothes and tying shoes
Toiletting - assistance to bathroom and assistance on and off toilet
Transferring - assistance from wheelchair to bed or from wheelchair to shower chair and vice versa
The number of ADL’s and degree of impairment in performing one or more of these ADL’s is an important consideration in whether or not an assignment to an assisted living or skilled care facility is required.
Assisted Living Care
An elderly or disabled inmate who requires assistance with one or two ADL’s requires assisted living care.
Such care is best provided in the Deerfield Correctional Center Assisted Living 40-bed Unit. The goal of
assisted living is to provide the appropriate environment for the elderly and disabled. This unit provides
the necessary level of support including housing, supervision, assistance and personal services. It is primarily staffed with certified nursing assistants.
To assist the Department’s reception centers and central classification unit with classifying inmates appropriately to assisted and skilled care beds, a "tier" level of medical classification has been developed:
Tier 1 – refers to inmates who may require minimal assistance occasionally but have difficulty functioning in a general population environment. Tier 1 inmates will usually require special therapeutic diets, medicines they can self-administer and occasional help with one ADL. Tier 1 inmates will be housed in the
88
Ron Angelone
assisted living unit.
Tier 2 – refers to inmates requiring assistance routinely with at least one ADL, and who may have urinary
catheters and may require assistance with self-managed incontinence. Tier 2 inmates will require supervision of their medications and will require help with meals and some activities. Tier 2 inmates will also
be housed in the assisted living unit.
Tier 3 – Inmates in Tier 3 will require all the services of Tiers 1 and 2, plus frequent assistance with 3 or
more ADL’s and assistance with medications. Nurses will administer medications and assist with manageable incontinence. They will require escort and assistance with meals and most other activities. These
inmates will be housed in a skilled care unit.
Selection of a suitable facility for development of assisted living beds has allowed the Department, with
the conversion of existing resources, to provide 40 assisted living beds at Deerfield Correctional Center.
Conversion of Deerfield Correctional Center
Deerfield was selected because of its progressive, innovative leadership, barrier-free facilities, expansion
possibilities and its geographic location. This unit is the first of its kind in the Virginia DOC. Assisted
living at Deerfield caused the administration to rethink procedures. New ways of doing business had to
be implemented including:
Physical Plant: The facility was built barrier free, but accommodations for inmates who are oxygen
dependent and those with Alzheimer’s disease required separate housing.
Programming: Activities to keep the inmate mentally and physically active such as low impact exercise,
board games (chess, checkers), and horticulture were developed.
Custody Staff: Training for correctional officers in dealing with an aging population, e.g. differentiating
between dementia’s and behavior problems, the impact of hearing loss, poor eyesight, slower reflexes and
instability in walking was instituted.
Operations: The need for assistance with ADL’s, making "living wills", "do not resuscitate orders", hospice and transportation policies were met.
Food Service: Awareness that the elderly may have difficulty in chewing, swallowing, take a longer time
to eat or need feeding assistance was heightened.
Medical, Dental and Mental Health: The need to do functional assessments to identify health care needs
and ADL assistance; the need for development and monitoring of care plans; specialization in geriatrics
was recognized.
Summary
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care Standard #51, states that "care should be provided for frail or elderly inmates including those who suffer from conditions that impair their ability to function to the extent that they require assistance in activities of daily living (e.g. dress, feed, transfer, toilet)"
(1997 pg. 66). Deerfield Correctional Center’s Assisted Living is ready to meet the needs of Virginia’s
growing elderly inmate population.
89
90
Residential Drug Abuse Treatment
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Director
Overview of Drug Abuse Treatment
Approximately 34% of federal inmates have drug use disorders. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operates
drug treatment programs to help reduce the likelihood that these inmates will return to drug abuse and
criminal lifestyles after release from custody.
The Bureau has provided drug treatment in various forms for decades. With the passage of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, the Bureau formed a workgroup to review drug treatment programs around
the country and to develop a drug treatment strategy that incorporated those elements proven effective in
treating inmates with substance abuse disorders.
The philosophy underlying the Bureau’s drug abuse treatment programs is that individuals must assume
personal responsibility for their behavior. Despite the influence of environmental conditions, the primary
target for change is the individual’s decision to engage in drug-taking and criminal behavior. The strategies used in the Bureau’s drug abuse treatment programs place responsibility for change on the individual
by demanding compliance with the rules and regulations of treatment, encouraging the inmate to accept
"ownership" of the norms of treatment and motivating the inmate to make a firm commitment to positive
change. This strategy attempts to identify, confront and alter the attitudes, values and thinking patterns
that lead an inmate to criminal and drug-using behavior. The treatment regimen focuses on the inmate's
individual accountability and responsibility, and tries to provide the inmate with the cognitive, emotional
and behavioral skills necessary for him or her to choose and maintain a drug-free and crime-free lifestyle.
Upon entry into a Bureau facility, an inmate's records are assessed to determine:
• Whether there is evidence that alcohol or drugs contributed to the commission of the offense
91
Residential Drug Abuse Treatment
• Whether the inmate violated the conditions of his or her parole or other community-based sanction based
on alcohol or drug use, or
• If the sentencing judge recommended that the inmate participate in a drug treatment program during
incarceration
If an inmate's record reveals any of these elements, the inmate is required to participate in a drug abuse
education course, available in every Bureau institution. Inmates are also interviewed concerning their past
drug use to determine their need for drug treatment.
In the drug abuse education program, inmates receive information about alcohol and drugs and the physical, social and psychological impact of these substances. They are also introduced to the other components of the Bureau's drug abuse treatment program. Those inmates who are identified as having further
treatment needs are encouraged to participate in non-residential or residential drug abuse treatment.
Non-residential drug abuse counseling is available in every Bureau of Prisons institution. In these programs, a licensed psychologist develops an individualized treatment plan based on a thorough assessment
of the inmate’s needs. The program typically includes group counseling.
The Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
The Bureau’s first residential drug treatment program became operational in October 1989. Opened at the
federal prison in Lexington, Kentucky (then a correctional institution for women), the residential treatment
program admitted 96 female inmates. With the emphasis on drug treatment in the late 1980's and early
1990's, heightened by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and with funding from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988, the Bureau expanded to 31 residential programs within three years.
The most significant impact on the program occurred in 1994, with the passage of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act. This legislation required that the Bureau provide residential treatment
to 100% of eligible inmates by the end of fiscal year 1997 and every year thereafter. The law also allows
the Bureau to grant an inmate convicted of a non-violent offense up to one-year reduction from his or her
statutory release date for successful completion of residential treatment. In response, the Bureau accelerated its expansion plan which included staff recruitment, redesigning and implementing the most effective
staff training approaches, refining the standardized drug treatment curriculum and expanding the transitional services component to keep offenders engaged in treatment as they return to their home communities. By the close of fiscal year 1997, the Bureau satisfied the requirement of providing treatment to all
eligible inmates.
Currently, residential drug abuse treatment programs exist at 48 Bureau institutions, offering a systemwide treatment capacity for over 10,000 inmates. Inmates who participate in the residential programs are
housed together in a separate unit of the prison reserved for drug treatment. The residential programs are
generally 9 months long and provide intensive treatment, four to six hours a day, five days a week. The
remainder of each day is spent in education, work skills training and other complementary programs such
as health promotion/disease prevention. The total program affords inmates a minimum of 500 hours of
treatment.
Most of the program’s content is standardized and includes a screening and assessment, an introduction to
the treatment regimen, and sessions in areas such as criminal lifestyle confrontation, cognitive skill build-
92
Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer
ing, relapse prevention, interpersonal skill building and wellness. Residential drug abuse treatment programs are staffed by doctoral-level psychologists who supervise the treatment staff, each of whom has a
caseload of no more than 24 inmates. During fiscal year 1999, the Bureau provided residential drug abuse
treatment to 10,816 inmates; 49,218 inmates have participated in residential programs since 1990.
The Bureau has determined that the optimal time for residential treatment is at the end of an inmate’s
prison term. This permits completion of the residential program and immediate transfer to the transitional services available in a halfway house. All inmates who complete a residential drug treatment program
are required to continue treatment upon transfer to a halfway house (typically for the last six months of
custody). The Bureau ensures consistency and continuity of treatment when an inmate is transferred from
one of its institutions to a halfway house prior to his or her release from custody, and when the inmate is
eventually released from custody to post-confinement supervision in the community. The Bureau forwards
the inmate’s treatment summary and relapse-prevention plan to the halfway house and/or the community
supervision authority and remains available for consultation and guidance during the period of transition
back into the community.
Results of Research
In 1998, the Bureau released very encouraging interim results of a long-term evaluation of the effectiveness of its residential drug treatment program. The study is being conducted with funding from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse. The results are consistent with other studies that have found that
inmates who participate in residential drug abuse treatment during imprisonment are less likely to be rearrested or to become involved in further drug use following their release as compared to inmates who do
not undergo residential treatment.
Specifically, Federal inmates who completed residential treatment were 73% less likely to be arrested for
a new offense in the first six months after release than inmates who did not participate in residential treatment were. Inmates who received treatment were also 44% less likely than those who had not received
treatment to be detected for drug use within the first six months of their release. The findings are encouraging because the first six months following an offender ’s release to the community are particularly difficult. It is during that period that ex-inmates often have a predisposition to return to a criminal or drug
abusing lifestyle. The findings suggest that drug abuse treatment assists inmates during this period of reintegration into the community. The results of the final report, based on a three-year follow-up, will help the
Bureau determine whether the positive effects continue beyond this initial period.
In addition, an evaluation of inmate behavior found that institution misconduct among male inmates who
completed the residential drug abuse treatment program was reduced by 25% when compared to misconduct among similar male inmates who did not participate in the residential program. Institution misconduct among female inmates who completed residential treatment was reduced by 70%. These results
demonstrate that residential drug abuse treatment in corrections-based settings assists in the management
of inmates and provides a significant benefit to institution safety and security.
93
94
Chapter 4
Employment
Readiness and
Community Service
95
96
Wrightsville Braille and Large Print Project
Arkansas Department of Correction
Larry Norris, Director
Introduction
For nearly 150 years, a public school in Little Rock has taught the wonders of the world to students who
cannot see them. The Arkansas School for the Blind was established in 1859 to serve the state’s blind and
visually impaired children. Since then, it has become an Arkansas tradition and has earned a national reputation for academic excellence. The school provides students with an atmosphere for learning, a spectrum of educational resources and opportunities to improve their quality of life.
Over the years with its enrollment expanding and course work becoming more complex, the ever present
need for textbooks and literary works in braille format grew more pressing at the School for the Blind. In
addition to the text on a printed page, virtually everything else that a sighted student sees has to be reproduced for a blind student to feel. Diagrams, maps, charts, graphs and figures must be transformed from
the sense of sight to the sense of touch without losing their meaning or effectiveness. The process is called
"tactile graphics," which is more of an art than an exact science, and the lack of firm rules for reproducing some graphics requires the transcriptionist to be resourceful and imaginative. Understandably, detailed
study materials transcribed in braille can be expensive and public schools often struggle to provide the
adaptive learning tools necessary for a quality education.
By 1984, Arkansas had begun looking for a cost-effective, yet well-made alternative to commercially produced educational materials. With a supply of inmate labor and its need for rewarding work, the search
led to the Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. The Wrightsville Braille and Large
Print Project was created through the combined efforts of the Office of the Governor, the Arkansas School
for the Blind, the Arkansas Department of Correction and service providers to the blind. Responsibility
for selecting the textbooks for braille production was placed with Educational Services for the Blind, a
component of the School for the Blind.
Employment Readiness and Community Service
97
Wrightsville Braille and Large Print Project
Development and Design
The Department of Correction selected a core group of eight inmates to participate in the project. Initial
braille instruction for the inmates was provided by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Subsequent
training has become the responsibility of inmates in the program who are proficient in braille transcription. Inmates are not assigned arbitrarily to the project. They are screened carefully and only those who
express an interest in the project, demonstrate the ability to learn and work without constant supervision,
are self-motivated and have a high school diploma are selected. The inmates must have at least two years
remaining on their sentence to ensure there is adequate time to become certified and enter the production
area of the program. The majority of inmates selected are braille illiterate and have little or no computer
training.
The first task of the inmate transcribers is to receive certification through the Library of Congress as a
Certified Literary Braille Transcriber. This certification, which is difficult to obtain, marks its holders as
being among the world’s finest transcribers whose work can be used by the visually impaired anywhere.
Training begins on a Perkins manual Braille writer and involves completing lessons from a manual supplied by the Library of Congress. After completing the manual, the instructors choose a novel for the
trainee to transcribe for the certification test. A minimum of 35 pages is submitted to the Library of
Congress and grading is strict. While awaiting the test results, the inmate receives further training in transcription and computer use. If certification is achieved, the inmate is assigned a textbook to transcribe
from cover to cover. It usually takes a year before a trainee becomes a productive part of the project.
Although the trainee may start producing material sooner, he is not considered to be proficient enough to
transcribe without help from the more experienced inmates. Each volume produced is proofread with
close attention to character formation and formatting. Several quality control checks are performed on
each book prior to shipping.
Implementation
As with most programs, the first years of the Braille and Large Print Project were difficult. All transcription was done manually and required enormous amounts of time. That, coupled with the inmates’ training requirements, held production to only 97 pages in the first year of operation. In 1988, the program
received two computers, a braille printer and a copier for producing large print school texts, homework
assignments and reading books. Through grants and donations, additional equipment was purchased,
including more computers, scanners, printers and a Tactile Image Enhancer and Thermo Pen. Because of
the equipment additions and innovations, yearly production now is measured in tens of thousands of
Braille pages.
Eleven inmates currently are assigned to the project and all of them are certified by the Library of
Congress. One inmate also has received certification in transcribing math into braille. Fewer than 200
people nationwide have obtained this certification. Another inmate is working toward certification in
music transcription, which fewer than 100 people nationwide have achieved.
Results
The Wrightsville Braille and Large Print Project has far exceeded expectations and has expanded to other
formats that require more work and skill. Since the program began, 89 inmates have earned braille certification from the Library of Congress. The inmate transcriptionists have produced more than one million
98
Larry Norris
braille pages, not including multiple copies of texts. So far this school year, 221 volumes of Braille have
been produced for a total of 32,000 transcribed pages. The superintendent of the Arkansas School for the
Blind rates the materials as being error-free, of consistent high quality and ready for immediate use by students. When books are unavailable from other sources, the school depends on the Wrightsville program
to provide students with the learning materials they need. Without the local transcription services, the
school would have financial difficulty offering the quality of instruction currently available. But with the
education tools produced at Wrightsville, school children with sight impairments have the books, worksheets, charts and graphs that are critical to their success in the classroom. In addition to the students
enrolled at the School for the Blind, approximately 800 visually impaired children attend classes in public school districts across the state. Educational Services for the Visually Impaired, the outreach program
of the Arkansas School for the Blind, provides these students with high quality, easily accessible materials from the Wrightsville Unit.
The braille project currently produces professional materials in the following areas:
• The transcription of literary and scholastic books including mathematical and scientific texts, plays,
music and foreign languages for all academic levels;
• The reproduction of pictures, graphs, charts and maps using the Tactile Graphics process and image
enhancer;
• The production of multiple copies of braille volumes using the thermoform process or the Index Basic
D/S braille
• printer; and
• The reproduction of any text in large print format complete with binderies and laminating.
The project receives no budgetary funding, yet to date it has saved the state of Arkansas more than $4.5
million dollars in transcription costs. For example, a textbook recently transcribed at Wrightsville would
have cost $6,000 if ordered from a commercial vendor. Although the Arkansas School for the Blind provides basic supplies including paper and some equipment, the program primarily operates on grants and
donations.
The environment within the program promotes creativity for the inmates because they watch their ideas
become reality. They also are able to contribute to society, appreciate the needs of others and take pride
in their work. The inmates assigned to the project work under minimal supervision, and many work up to
80 hours a week. The schedule is not required; they choose to work the lengthy hours. Each transcriber
is responsible for timely completion of assignments and the responsibility is taken seriously.
A visit to the braille work area always is included on group tours of the Wrightsville Unit. The inmates
not only demonstrate to visitors how a schoolbook is transcribed into braille, they also hand out informational pamphlets they wrote and produced. The inmates also publish and distribute a newsletter periodically that was created through their own initiative.
Conclusion
In the Wrightsville Braille and Large Print Project, inmates set priorities, train other inmates and generally manage production. This innovative approach has served the project and the inmates well. Throughout
the 16 years of operation, there have been no major incidents involving contraband, assaults or disturbances within the work area. The inmates become highly skilled in braille transcription and computer use,
which can help them obtain meaningful employment upon release. In fact, some former project partici-
99
pants currently are employed in such positions. The project also creates an environment that allows
inmates to use their skills productively while learning to handle responsibility, set schedules and meet
deadlines. Their creativity and initiative are allowed and encouraged to flourish.
At the same time, the inmates learn empathy for others. In a demonstration at the Wrightsville Unit,
instructors from the Arkansas School for the Blind brought specially prepared glasses that imitate visual
impairments such as cataracts, tunnel vision and total blindness. The inmates took turns becoming temporarily blinded by the effects of the glasses and acting as guides while others wore the glasses. The
demonstration did not take long, but it left the inmates with a better understanding of the obstacles and difficulties facing the visually impaired. Their next newsletter included an article about the experience and
how they had returned to transcribing with a renewed sense of urgency, realizing the necessity and importance of their work to visually impaired students. The millions of dollars saved by the Wrightsville Braille
and Large Print Project can be calculated easily, but perhaps the real value and true success of the program
cannot be measured so simply; the benefits it brings to the inmates and to the children of Arkansas.
100
Inmate Firefighters: A Path for Those
Who Have Stumbled
California Department of Corrections
C. A. "Cal" Terhune, Director
They are a familiar sight in the morning newspaper and on TV news reports during California’s long fire
season that stretches from May through November. They are soot-covered firefighters wearing orange
protective gear, chopping fire breaks to stop raging wildfires in hilly terrain driven by the infamous Santa
Ana winds. But the orange-colored gear gives them away to those in the know. The color of their firefighting gear identifies them as minimum custody inmates serving a sentence most likely for a non-violent
offense in one of California’s 38 Conservation Camps scattered through the Sierra Nevada foothills and
Coastal Range. Thirty-three of these camps are jointly run by the California Department of Corrections
(CDC) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF); the remaining five are run
by CDC and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The CDC oversees security and operations of the
camps while the partnering fire agency supplies the firefighting training and supervision of inmate firefighters on duty.
These orange-garbed inmate firefighters are part of a program with a long and rich history in California.
Established in 1946, the Conservation Camps program provides cooperative agencies with an able-bodied,
trained workforce for fire suppression and other emergencies, such as floods and earthquakes. More than
4,000 male and female inmates comprising 182 fire crews participate in this program.
In an average year, Conservation Camp Program inmates provide eight million hours for community service projects and two million hours for firefighting and other emergencies, saving California taxpayers more
than $80 million annually. During the devastating ‘Fire Sieges of 1999’ alone, in which 750,000 acres
burned and 1,500 structures were lost, the estimated cost avoidance to California taxpayers was approximately $150 million.
While CDC’s inmate firefighters spend most of the year supporting community service projects, it is the
101
Inmate Firefighters
state’s frequently ferocious fire season that puts inmate firefighters in the spotlight. Working the difficult
job of fighting fires is not without risk. Last year saw the accidental death of inmate firefighter Martin
Stiles. Stiles, 40, was assigned to a fire crew from the Julius Klein Conservation Camp in Azusa,
California, battling the Piru blaze in Ventura County. Stiles and his crewmates were constructing a containment line in the mountainous terrain of the Los Padres National Forest when he fell 150 feet to his
death from a steep hillside. "He was an inmate, but he died a firefighter," said Director Terhune, in honoring Stiles and other inmate firefighters at a state Capitol ceremony in January 2000.
Stiles was among many inmate firefighters in the CDC program who put themselves at risk in the line of
duty. Examples of inmate firefighter heroism dot the program’s long history that actually can be traced to
1915, which is the first documented use of inmates in a camp setting. Since those early days, when convicts from the California’s two oldest prisons, San Quentin and Folsom state prisons, worked to build scenic Highway 1 in Mendocino County, inmate firefighters have built a legacy of meritorious service to
California. Some notable recent examples include the following:
• On January 6, 1997, more than 300 inmates and staff from several Conservation Camps completed a
3,500 foot berm around the town of Meridian in California’s Sutter County, saving the small community
from the threat of rising flood waters from the nearby Sutter Bypass. Flooding had begun nearly a week
before the berm was completed. More than 1,000 Conservation Camp inmates participated in the effort
before it was finally completed.
• In 1993, almost 2,000 Conservation Camp inmate firefighters fought arson-fed wildfires in Malibu and
nearby urban areas of the Southern California coastal area. One team rescued five fire victims from a
coastal bluff minutes before a fireball engulfed the area. Two other crews and a county volunteer strike
team strung five miles of hose to save 35 homes in a canyon unreachable by fire trucks.
• In 1999, CDC’s Delta Camp in Suisun City responded to Benziger Family Winery in Glen Ellen,
California, where a desperate attempt had been in progress for over one hour to free a man trapped in a
trench that had collapsed at a winery construction site. For three hours in the hot Napa Valley sun, the 17
members of Crew 1 worked alongside CDF crews and winery workers, digging with shovels and small
hand tools, passing dirt out of the trench in five-gallon buckets and simultaneously shoring up trench walls
as they progressed toward the victim. Crew 1 passed the victim out on a backboard as a crowd of family,
friends and co-workers applauded. In addition to a commendation from the Glen Ellen Fire Department,
the members of Delta Crew 1 were recommended for Meritorious Sentence Reduction, which resulted in
three-months sentence reductions for some eligible crew members.
Inmates assigned to the Conservation Camp Program are carefully screened and medically cleared for participation. Only minimum custody inmates may participate. To qualify, the inmate must be physically fit
and have no history of violent crime, including sex offenses, arson or escape. The average sentence for
inmates selected for camp is two years and the average time they spend in camp is eight months. After
being selected for camp, inmates undergo a vigorous two-week physical fitness-training program and are
then schooled for another two weeks in fire safety and suppression techniques. The rigorous training
regime includes 64 hours of classroom and hands-on firefighting training. Upon graduation from this
training, inmates receive a wildlands firefighting certificate, the same certification used by state and federal agencies in hiring wildlands firefighters.
Male inmate firefighters receive firefighting training at the California Correctional Center in Susanville,
102
Cal Terhune
California; the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California; the California Men’s Colony in San
Luis Obispo, California; and the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, California. Female inmate firefighters receive training at the California Institution for Women in Frontera, California.
In a typical Conservation Camp, 60 to 120 inmates live in military-style barracks and eat in a cafeteria
style-dining hall. Within the compound, there are workshops, garages and storage facilities to house necessary fire response and vocational training equipment. Unlike prisons, there are no gun towers or security fences. However, inmates are restricted to certain well-defined, marked boundaries. Relatively few
walk away as most are near the end of their sentences and escapees are faced with a return to prison for
longer terms.
When not fighting fires, fire crews work on conservation projects on public lands and provide labor for
local community service projects, such as wildlife habitat rehabilitation and preservation, levee repair and
flood control, reforestation, illegal dump site cleanup, pine bark beetle eradication, park and cemetery
maintenance and graffiti removal. Inmate firefighters are paid $1.00 per hour on the fire lines and from
$1.45 to $3.90 a day for non-emergency work. In addition to being paid a minimal wage, inmate firefighters, as well as all working inmates, receive day for day credit while working toward completion of
their sentence under California’s determinate sentencing law. During non-working hours, inmates are
involved in special projects that include repairing children’s toys for Christmas gifts to disadvantaged children, or other projects that benefit elderly or disabled citizens.
Additionally, some Conservation Camp inmates participate in a drug rehabilitation program offered in the
evening and on weekends at one of the camps. Most of these participants are voluntary; however some
are mandated by the court to participate.
However, in addition to earning credit toward time served and being paid a minimal wage, the program
provides inmate participants with a valuable skill that a few have used to become professional firefighters
when they complete their sentence. Others earn some valuable life lessons and pride along the way, giving them as a group one of the lowest recidivism rates of California prison inmates.
A study of rates of return to prison for inmates paroled during 1996-97 compared paroles who had served
their sentence in a camp with those who had re-entry training and inmates who had neither. The group
paroled at camp had the lowest return or recidivism rate at six months, one year and also at two years.
However, the study did point out that inmates assigned to camp are at very low risk for in-prison misconduct and generally have shorter, less intense criminal histories and have committed less serious crimes.
Overall, the dual purpose of California’s Conservation Camps – conservation and development of both
human and natural resources – has served the state well for over 50 years. Inmates have provided a strong,
organized work force for conservation while developing or improving social habits and work ethics. In
fact, one camp’s guiding mission statement sums up the camp experience quite eloquently:
"California’s Conservation Camp crews are composed of men who have stumbled on man-made laws
which were formulated for the protection of society. Under the direction of the cooperating but wholly different state agencies, they protect natural resources from the forces lost by humans who have stumbled
over the laws of Nature."
Men to Match the Mountains (1974)
By Lloyd Thorp
103
104
Private Industry Inmate Work Program
Kansas Department of Corrections
Charles E. Simmons, Secretary
Introduction
On December 3, 1979, 11 minimum-custody inmates from the Kansas Correctional Institution at Lansing
began working for Zephyr Products, Inc., a privately owned metal fabrication company in Leavenworth,
Kansas. Zephyr provided a bus to transport a combination of male and female inmates from the prison to
the work site four miles away. The company was purchased and moved to Leavenworth specifically to
provide work experience and training for inmates. Zephyr Products was then certified as one of the first
seven in the country under the Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) pilot program. This was the beginning
of the private industry work program in the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC). Private industries now employ over 360 inmates in several correctional facilities, a number expected to increase in the
future as industry buildings are expanded or constructed.
The PIE program is distinct from the traditional (state-operated) correctional industry program. In the traditional industry program the market for the products and services produced by inmate labor is restricted
to governmental agencies and not-for-profit organizations. Inmate workers in the traditional program are
paid at an incentive pay rate of up to $.60 per hour, while those employed by private industries earn at least
minimum wage. The private industry program is also different from the work release program where
inmates are housed in work release centers and employed in the community.
The PIE program includes all inmates who are housed in an adult correctional facility and work for a private sector company. It is considered a part of Kansas Correctional Industries and provides 45% of the
inmate jobs in that organization. The program consists of both companies located away from prison prop-
105
Private Industry Inmate Work Program
erty and those who lease space inside the perimeter of a correctional facility. Prison-based companies that
manufacture products shipped in interstate commerce are certified Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE)
programs. Industries located in the community and service type industries are not certified PIE industries;
however, KDOC policy requires them to pay inmates at least federal minimum wage and take the same
deductions from inmate paychecks as are taken from inmates employed by PIE industries.
Working for a private company in the private industry program is considered by most inmates to be the
best job assignment they can have while incarcerated. Understandably, there are long waiting lists for
these jobs, which is a real advantage to the company. KDOC believes that being allowed to work for a
private company is a privilege, so inmates must have no disciplinary reports and a good work record before
they can interview for a job. Facility staff screen potential applicants, but private industry personnel interview the applicants and make the final hiring decisions. Once employed, the private company makes out
payroll checks directly to the inmate employee but the checks are sent to the prison business office.
Deductions are withheld with the balance being deposited in the inmate’s account.
Implementation
All private industries in Kansas are based on the "employer model", meaning that the inmates are actually employees of the company and not the Department of Corrections. The companies are required to either
provide direct supervision of the inmate workers or reimburse Correctional Industries for the salary of state
correctional industry supervisors. The Department prefers the employer model because inmates are supervised during working hours at no cost to the state and the companies are responsible for their own production rates and quality control. Also, inmates experience actually working for a company rather than
working for the state. Before a contract is signed with any private company, assurances are obtained from
the Department of Human Resources that there are not surplus unemployed workers in the area.
Additionally, the contract provides that the private company will not displace any civilian workers by hiring inmates.
Zephyr, the first of Kansas’ private correctional industries, is still employing inmates after more than 20
years and subsequently located two more companies at their industrial complex in Leavenworth. During
the 20 years that inmates have been working at these three non-prison based industries, other companies
have signed agreements with KDOC for prison-based industries. The first of the prison-based industries
was Jensen Engineering Company, which began a drafting service in 1984 inside the maximum-security
area of the Kansas State Penitentiary (now Lansing Correctional Facility). Jensen continues to employ
inmates, although the industry is now located in a medium-security area of the prison.
Century Manufacturing Inc. hired its first inmates at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility in June 1993. The
company now employs 32 inmates at Ellsworth and plans to more than double that number in 2000. When
a new industry building was built at the El Dorado Correctional Facility about 100 miles away, Century
agreed to lease the building for its second prison location. Century outgrew that building and recently
added a 12,000 sq. ft. expansion at its own expense. Century's president has taken a personal interest in
providing jobs for offenders not only while they are incarcerated, but also upon release by providing job
opportunities in three other plants in Kansas communities.
The private industries program now consists of 12 companies employing inmates from five correctional
facilities. Wages paid to private industry inmates range from the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour
to approximately $7.50 per hour. In FY 1999, deductions were withheld from wages earned by inmates
106
Charles E. Simmons
employed by private companies totaling: $121,085 for victims compensation; $705,384 returned to the
state to help offset the cost of incarceration; $54,891 for court ordered restitution; and $172,477 for
mandatory savings for use upon release. Deductions were also made for state and federal income tax withholdings.
Industrial Buildings
The private prison industry program in Kansas is truly a partnership between the private and public sectors. All of the buildings housing the industries developed by Zephyr in Leavenworth were built with private funds with no subsidy from the state. Those industries now employ over 100 inmates and have cost
the state nothing.
Expansion of the program within the facilities became a priority in the early 1990s to address inmate idleness problems. Finding adequate space to lease to private companies was, and still is, a challenge. Two
initiatives have allowed new industrial buildings to be built without using State General Fund money.
First, KDOC established a building fund by setting aside a portion of the money deducted from the wages
of inmates employed by private companies for room and board. This fund is within the Correctional
Industry Fund and the money is used for both renovation of space for industries and new construction.
Second, state legislation was enacted authorizing private companies to finance industry building construction within prisons, and then donate the buildings to the state. The first building to be built by a private company was completed in 1999 at the El Dorado Correctional Facility. Century Manufacturing
leased a 16,000 sq. ft. building located within the prison but wanted to expand. Century totally paid for a
12,000 sq. ft. addition to the building in exchange for a 20-year low cost lease. An 18,000 sq. ft. addition
to another building that Century is leasing in the Ellsworth Correctional Facility is nearly complete, funded by a combination of state and Century funds.
Conclusion
KDOC believes that the private industry program is a "best practice" because everyone benefits:
• The inmates benefit by getting real world job experience and earning money to be used upon release. In
many cases the inmates also send money home for family support.
• KDOC benefits because idleness is reduced and inmates are employed in a productive work program
where supervision salaries are paid by the private sector. There are fewer disciplinary problems among
those inmates employed in private industries than among those who are not.
• The private companies benefit from a highly motivated and focused work force. There is a vast pool of
labor from which to hire and replacements are very quickly on the job.
• The taxpayers benefit because privately employed inmates pay income taxes and social security. The
cost of incarceration is reduced by the room and board deductions taken from the inmates’ earnings.
Taxpayers also benefit from contributions made to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund (no less than
5% of the inmates’ wages.)
107
108
Prison Build Program
Michigan Department of Corrections
Bill Martin, Director
How often does a correctional agency sponsor a prison program that all the politicians, the general public
and prisoner advocacy groups can support? It’s a rare occasion but it's happening in Michigan. In March
of 2000 a three-bedroom house built by state prisoners was loaded on a truck and driven through the streets
of Saginaw, Michigan, to a site where a young Hispanic woman and her four-year-old son were to make
their home. It was the beginning of a major effort by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to
provide valuable vocational skills to prisoners while serving the community.
During the years to come, the Department, with the enthusiastic support of the governor, plans to build
whole houses and house components for non-profit organizations trying to provide decent low-cost housing to low-income families in the state. In addition to the houses themselves, the MDOC is planning to
design and build kitchen and bathroom cabinets, sew draperies and curtains, make rugs, devise landscaping plans and grow the plants to put in the designs.
The program called the Michigan Prison Build has elevated the self-esteem of each prisoner who has participated; teaches vocational and social skills; exemplifies the best in restorative justice; and has received
substantial praise from the public.
How it all Started
In 1998, under the governor’s direction, MDOC began building wall panels for affiliates of Habitat for
Humanity of Michigan. By the end of the summer of 1999, prisoners at three state facilities had built walls
for 62 houses. The wall panels were transported to sites where volunteer workers were able to save from
two to three days in construction time. In some cases, the pre-built panels made construction possible.
109
Prison Build Program
Besides the wall panels, prisoners at other facilities grew plants for landscaping and crocheted afghans for
the new homeowners.
The success prompted MDOC to see a bigger role in providing low-cost housing for disadvantages families. Not only could the agency provide valuable training for prisoners in building and trades programming, landscaping and the manufacture of carpeting and drapery, but the greater community could also be
served. A coordinator was appointed and the Prison Build Program was created.
The House on Wheeler Street
Building an entire house inside a state prison for Habitat for Humanity seemed the next logical step. The
idea was born in August of 1999. The program was launched with a major challenge--to build a complete
home, fully intact with cabinets, doors and shelving, painted and ready to move to a site. It would not be
a modular home.
The newly appointed Prison Build Program Coordinator conferred with the warden of the Saginaw
Correctional Facility (SCF) and the executive director of Saginaw Habitat for Humanity. The Saginaw
prison was the first facility in the state to construct wall paneling and staff and prisoners were enthusiastic and competent. Each participating agency signed on to the total house concept with enthusiasm.
Habitat for Humanity of Michigan submitted a request and received a grant from the Michigan State
Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) to help pay for construction materials. The cost of excavation and laying the foundations at the site was borne by the Saginaw affiliate. Private citizens donated the
land and prisoners supplied the labor.
Work at the Prison
Eight Level I (minimum-security) prisoners from the facility worked under the direction of a department
employee who had extensive experience in house construction. Actual construction began in late
December 1999, inside the security perimeter of the facility, and was completed on March 14, 2000. Doors
were hung, trim and molding added and the kitchen and bath cabinets were installed. The only work not
performed by inmates involved the electrical, heating and plumbing installation. To allow the house to be
moved, it was constructed on steel beams, and on March 19, it was attached to a truck and moved to its
site by a professional house mover. On March 27, 2000, the 1,050 square foot house, which had cost
$35,000 to build, was dedicated. The House on Wheeler Street became the first home ever constructed
within a prison by inmates for the Habitat for Humanity program.
In addition to the work of the inmates at SRF, female inmates at the Florence Crane Correctional Facility
in Coldwater designed the landscaping, complete with shrubbery, flowers and hardwoods suitable for the
climate conditions. Women at the Scott Correctional Facility in Plymouth made a yellow afghan as a
housewarming gift.
Where does this Lead?
While building the Wheeler Street house, MDOC also began plans to build 125 sets of interior and exterior walls for the Habitat Program during 2000. These will be paid for through the sale of bonds by the
MSHDA. MDOC will also design landscaping plans, provide plants and other horticulture products for
Habitat affiliates and design and build cabinets.
110
Bill Martin
The success of building a complete house helped set the stage for the future. We intend to create a program that leads an inmate from instruction to experience and employment. What follows is our vision and
mission for the Prison Build Program:
Building Trades Curriculum
The Department intends to revise the building trades curriculum through a cooperative effort with the State
departments of Education and Career Development and with residential and commercial contractors. The
curriculum courses will be a pre-cursor to union and non-union apprenticeship and other training courses
used in the private sector. Inmates will be selected based on a predetermined classification scheme. The
courses will be taught through distance learning and on-site instruction.
Marketing the Prison Build Program
The MDOC will market the program to MSHDA municipalities and non-profit housing groups. The
agency is working with MSHDA to build homes for use in their Replacement Program, which purchases
manufactured housing and sells it to low-income families at low-interest rate loans. Staff will also market the Prison Build Program to municipalities as a vehicle to providing housing and components to
replace abandoned housing in urban centers.
E-Commerce
The Department is hoping to create a web-site for orders, production and distribution of housing components and complete homes. The system would integrate Habitat for Humanity and other non-profit housing organizations, building suppliers, MSHDA and others.
Private Sector Employment
MDOC is working with the Michigan Department of Career Development to create a job bank web-site to
provide profiles of inmates who will be released and who have completed the Prison Build Program.
Employers would have access to inmate profiles for potential employment. Regional partnerships with
church-based organizations to establish support networks for those released are also being considered. A
support network would assist in providing temporary housing, clothing, transportation and building trades
employment if an inmate has not secured employment prior to release.
Tracking
Inmates who have participated in the program and are released will be tracked to determine if the program
reduces recidivism. As we progress into the future the following issues must be continuously assessed:
Security and Custody
Level I inmates are interviewed prior to entering the program. Those inmates who fail to work productively are dismissed. Tools such as automatic nail and staple guns are prohibited. Shakedowns and prisoner count schedules are adhered to irrespective of a particular building schedule.
111
Physical Plant Assets
Grounds at the Saginaw Correctional Facility will be expanded to accommodate the building of complete
housing. Space is generally limited on prison sites and each facility will have to be assessed to determine
its capabilities and participation in the program.
Prisoner Transfers
There may be a need to revise the procedure on transferring inmates from prison to prison if he or she is
enrolled in the program.
Since I became director of the Michigan Department of Corrections in 1998, work in the area of helping
to build affordable housing for low-income families has been the most satisfying I have ever undertaken.
It has been personally rewarding, and very professionally rewarding, as well. Not only can prisoners do
something good for others; they can do something good for themselves, something that will have positive
repercussions for the foreseeable future.
112
Transformations: Technology Bootcamp
New Hampshire Department of Corrections
Edda Cantor, Acting Commissioner
Program Background
On January 9, 1992 personnel from the New Hampshire Departments of Post-secondary Technical
Education (DPTE) and Corrections (NHDOC) met to discuss strategies to design and implement educational services for inmates of the new NHDOC Lakes Region Facility (LRF) in Laconia, New Hampshire.
At the meeting it was agreed to be effective, educational services must enable inmates to:
• Successfully master secondary and post-secondary educational skills to prepare them to enter technically skilled career occupations
• Obtain technically skilled employment upon release from LRF
• Transition easily academically and socially from LRF to other educational programs and institutions with
college credits
The outcome of this meeting was the establishment of an interdepartmental planning team that submitted
a three-year grant proposal to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education, to
implement a new "Technology Bootcamp" educational program at the Lakes Region Facility. LRF is a
program prison that houses habilitative programs for non-violent offenders chosen from voluntary applicants at both the State Prison in Concord and the Women’s Prison in Goffstown. Placement at LRF
involves participation in a wide range of interventions aimed at achieving sobriety, self-discipline, interpersonal awareness, and academic and applied educational skills.
The New Hampshire Community Technical College at Laconia North (NHCTC-L) Technology Bootcamp
design is based on the "Transformations" model of education originally developed by the Center for
Occupational Research and Development (CORD) in Waco, Texas to retrain "technically illiterate" dislo-
113
Transformations
cated male and female workers for entry-level technical careers. This model had proved successful in
developing academic and personal skills in populations with a profile of school failure, under achievement
and low self-esteem.
The collaboration between DPTE and NHDOC called for NHCTC-L to operate a college campus within
the perimeter of the LRF correctional facility. Control of the educational environment by the college was
considered essential to the success of the program as it provided a more normalized setting for learning to
take place. The grant was funded in September 1992 with the first students beginning courses in March of
1993. Since that time, 300 students have graduated from the program.
Program Characteristics
For the student, Transformations is a 16-week, 480-hour educational experience that utilizes a carefully
sequenced curriculum combination of instructional methodologies and a class schedule based on the belief
that learning is literally a full-time job. At the end of the program the graduates have earned 30 college
credits or about half of an Associate’s degree. This program provides students with the applied academic
knowledge and skills essential to understanding and using complex technologies in business and industry.
From 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, the inmates take a series of courses in one of two
certificate programs: information technology or industrial technology. Along with the coursework, another three hours of homework each night and on weekends is required of the students. Classes are small and
mix male and female inmates with a total semester attendance of between 30 and 45. Only two
Transformation semesters a year have been offered to date, but a third will be offered beginning in the
summer of 2000 to allow more inmates to attend. The program also includes a learning lab for inmates
who may need to do remedial work to earn a GED before they can take certificate courses.
The curriculums are developed to reflect the needs of the New Hampshire business community so that the
graduates will have a better chance of landing meaningful jobs when they are released. For an offender to
earn information technology certificates they must study workplace communication, software applications, PC hardware assembly and maintenance, spreadsheets and database management and design. Those
earning industrial technology certificates take courses that include blueprint reading/geometric dimensioning and tolerances, fundamentals of CAD, CNC programming and machine tool technology.
Transformations is:
• Self-Paced: Rates of work and study take into account individual needs and abilities.
• Applied: Students learn by doing.
• Competency Driven: Students learn occupational related skills and demonstrate mastery through
group/individual projects, written/oral testing and lab demonstrations.
• Block Scheduled: Courses are scheduled to maximize concentration and achievement.
• Instructor Facilitated: Instructors act as mentors.
• Student Centered: Students help design instructional activities and are responsible for their own learning.
• A Team Effort: Students learn how to establish and maintain collaborative work relationships
• Multimedia: Texts, videos, computers, calculators, lab materials, instructor and peer presentations are
used.
• Individualized: Individual learning plans are established cooperatively by staff and students.
114
Edda Cantor
• Workplace Oriented: Applications of learning to the real world of work are emphasized.
• College Compatible: Upon completion of the program students receive college certification and credit.
• Accessible to Students: Admission is based on demonstrated competencies and does not require high
school diploma or GED.
The average cost of the Transformations education per inmate is $3,520 dollars. The return rate of the graduates to prison for new crimes is 10.5% based on a 36-month follow-up of 96 graduates. Out of the 300
graduates, 95% have been accepted to college following graduation. From the standpoint of NHDOC this
is a successful program.
Success Stories
Sara R., a single mother, was released after graduation in December 1994. After earning her GED, she
went on to earn a degree in human services from an NHCTC college as well as a certificate in gerontology while working in the human services field. She is now working in nursing home management.
Amy B. earned a certificate in personal computer technology before she was released from prison in
February 1997. She worked as a desk clerk for a major hotel chain and was later promoted to assistant
manager. She is now working in the telecommunication field and has since been promoted to manager of
the sales force, a position that pays her about $600 a week.
After being released from LRF in May 1997 with a certificate in industrial technology/maintenance, Scott
L. enrolled in NHCTC and earned a degree in Electro-mechanical technology. He was subsequently
recruited by a New Jersey Company that relocated him, found him a residence, and provided transportation and a sizeable salary.
Business Comments
Winterton Associates performed a summative evaluation of the Transformation program in September
1998. "Based on employer interviews and surveys, the Transformations program does provide useful
employability skills for the graduates and willingness to learn on the job. The majority of employers would
recommend that other employers hire graduates. The employers who provided feedback agreed that the
Transformations program is a worthwhile investment for New Hampshire."
The acceptance of Transformations graduates by the business community is demonstrated through active
recruitment of the graduates by businesses. Poly Vac in Londonderry, NH, a firm that manufactures molded surgical trays for hip replacement and facial reconstruction, contacted Transformations about future
graduates. They wanted to talk to them about careers in their company. Eptam Plastics in Gilford, NH has
made offers to give graduates help with housing and transportation if they choose to work there.
One company that is truly pleased that Transformations exists is MAR-CAM in New Hampton, NH. The
screw and machine shop manufactures microwave connector components for communication and high frequency devices such as satellites, medical imaging machinery and aircraft landing gear and realized sales
of $1.25 million in 1998. MAR-CAM hired two Transformations graduates in 1998. Heidi Thompson, the
company’s general manager, was one of the many business people who assisted in the development of an
enhanced curriculum model for the program’s industrial technology certificate. "There’s been a machinist
shortage in New Hampshire for the last decade," says Thompson. "MAR-CAM has turned to these grad-
115
Transformations
uates as a source of skilled labor. The machining industry as well as manufacturing can absorb the people
who graduate from the program."
Transformation graduates are attractive because they already have the necessary skills and do not require
further training. With very little instruction, the two graduates that MAR-CAM hired were able to get right
to work as set-up machinists. From the start, Thompson was impressed with her new employees’healthy
work ethic, punctuality and enthusiasm for making a living so they could support their families.
Replication in Other States
The following are factors taken from the Winterton evaluation of Transformations, which are important to
the implementation of the model at other correction facilities:
• A positive attitude of staff with ability to gain trust
• Balance between the education environment and the culture of a correction facility
• Focus on what is best for the students
• Identify students who are sentence appropriate and can meet the academic challenges of a rigorous program
• Develop the program content in cooperation with employers who can support the program and hire the
graduates
• Assists students with job interviewing, placement and setting goals for further education
Summary
NHDOC believes the Transformations program assists offenders in becoming productive workers and contributing members of society. The "college inside the prison" produces graduates to help NH industry meet
its labor needs and stay competitive in the global marketplace. In the future, industry involvement will
continue to increase where more companies will request these workers specifically for their job openings.
116
Tourism and Transportation Information Center
North Carolina Department of Correction
Theodis Beck, Secretary
Introduction
Tourism is one of the largest industries in North Carolina. In 1997 alone more than 41 million visitors
spent $10 billion in the state. In 1987, the Travel and Tourism Division of the North Carolina Department
of Commerce found itself unable to keep up with the thousands of requests for vacation information about
the state. They were unable to respond in a timely and productive manner. The North Carolina
Department of Correction proposed a partnership and a program that would put inmates to work while providing a much-needed service for the State of North Carolina.
The warden of the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women welcomed the idea of utilizing
female inmates to assemble and package information for mailing. In a matter of days, the female inmate
workforce cleared the backlog. With the high quality of work noted by all, the project immediately progressed from a "temporary solution" to a permanent program. Travel packages of vacation materials continued to be assembled and prepared for bulk mailing by inmates. The standard travel package includes a
travel guide, state map and calendar of events. Packages are customized with additional information if
requested by the caller.
The North Carolina Tourism and Transportation Information Center is located at the North Carolina
Correctional Institution for Women in Raleigh, North Carolina. Female inmates promote the tourism
industry in North Carolina by responding to phone calls and other inquiries received by fax, e-mail and
standard mail from prospective tourists, nationally and internationally, who are planning a vacation to
North Carolina. The toll-free lines operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Inmate operators answer
calls from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Voice mail operates the remaining hours. The program, which has been
in operation for 13 years, is a cooperative partnership of three North Carolina Departments: the
117
Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development; the Department of
Correction, North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women; and the Department of Transportation,
Rail Division. The agencies work together through a formal written memorandum of understanding to
ensure the continued success of the program.
The program was so successful that two years later it was proposed that the female inmates be trained to
operate the toll-free tourism phone lines (1-800-VISIT NC). Correctional staff carefully screened the 15
inmates assigned to the program. Generally, the selected inmates were in medium custody, had a long sentence, an 8th grade reading level, good communication skills and a good conduct record.
The inmates were given an intensive five-week training in the areas of North Carolina history, geography
and tourism, as well as in computer, communication and hospitality skills. American Airlines assisted the
commerce staff and tourism industry in providing the initial training.
The call center opened at the prison on December 20, 1989. During the first year of operation, female
inmates answered an average of 18,000 calls per month. In the beginning, the tourism industry of North
Carolina was somewhat skeptical about using prisoners to answer the phones. They quickly became the
inmate operators’ biggest fans as they recognized the eagerness and personal touch the female inmates
brought to the job.
By 1996, planning began in earnest to expand due to the success and growth of the program. It was during this time that the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division joined the partnership as
they began planning new promotional initiatives with passenger trains operating in North Carolina. Over
the next two years the staff from the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, the Rail Division
and the Division of Tourism worked diligently together to design and bring about a new facility. Two
modular buildings, built to order and connected by a walkway, were located at a more convenient site on
the prison property. The square footage more than doubled to 5,000 square feet. A classroom and offices
were added, and the operator work stations tripled to 20. New furnishings and equipment and state of the
art software was added to the information center to provide more efficient service.
The grand opening for the new and improved information center was held on December 16, 1998. In addition to answering tourism calls, the operators began handling inquiries to 1-800-BY TRAIN for the Rail
Division, and 1-800 SERVE NC for the Governor’s Volunteer Action Line for Citizen and Community
Services. At the present time, 32 inmates work in the program answering inquiries and assembling customized vacation packages. They work in six-hour shifts for $1.00 to $3.00 a day, depending on length of
service and conduct. The Division of Tourism provides two staff who supervise the daily operation of the
program on site and correctional staff supervise the inmates.
To participate, each inmate must successfully complete the course curriculum for "Human Relations for
the Hospitality Industry," sponsored on site by Wake Technical Community College. It is a continuing
education course for which the inmate receives college credit. On-going training is provided almost weekly as representatives of the tourism industry, ranging from city/county convention and visitors bureaus to
specific attractions or events, provide "armchair" tours to the inmate operators. The tourism industry representatives rotate their presentations to keep the inmates current with seasonal changes and upcoming
events.
Various security measures are taken to ensure the integrity of the program. The phone system randomly
118
Theodis Beck
directs incoming calls to operators. With spot checks, the supervisors monitor calls by listening in and the
phone records are closely reviewed. There is no direct access to the Internet. No reservations are taken.
There are no financial transactions or credit card information utilized.
Emergency Assistance
The center has also come to serve the citizens of North Carolina during times of emergency. This occurred
spontaneously with Hurricane Fran in 1996. The floods engendered by Hurricane Floyd in 1999 devastated great sections of the state. The North Carolina Emergency Management Agency teamed up with the
inmate tourism information center to take calls from citizens in need of emergency management services/information. The messages were immediately relayed to the state headquarters for North Carolina
Emergency Management. In January 2000, central and eastern North Carolina were hit with a recordbreaking snowstorm/blizzard that dumped up to two feet of snow immobilizing the state. Once again the
Governor and Emergency Management Agency called on the female inmate operators to take calls 24
hours a day and relay the information as before.
Results
As a result of the partnership between the Departments of Correction and Commerce, the State of North
Carolina has realized substantial financial benefits. The North Carolina Correctional Institution for
Women has provided a willing workforce that takes pride in their work, are reliable and dependable in
attendance, and have received national accolades for their effectiveness and efficiency. During the first
year of the call center (1989), over $138,000 was saved in salaries. An additional one million dollars plus
has been saved since then.
The volume of calls and mailed packages handled by the female inmates are:
Year
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Calls
251,233
261,102
256,965
284,767
304,874
284,196
215,782
Packages
300,658
318,492
318,612
243,918
369,123
320,867
309,816
Conclusion
The joint efforts and shared resources of the Departments of Commerce, Correction, and Transportation
have achieved a highly successful information center for tourism and transportation in the state of North
Carolina. Since the partnership began 13 years ago, millions of calls have been answered and millions of
travel packages have been mailed from the prison. Vacationers to North Carolina can call in advance and
talk with a friendly and professional person who adds a personal touch to the invitation to VISIT NC.
The female inmates working in the center have been provided with the boost in self- esteem that comes
from a job well done and in helping others – an important element of restorative justice. The positive publicity has countered the public’s generally negative stereotype of inmates. In addition to the tourism revenues, the citizenry of North Carolina has received help during times of natural disasters and statewide
119
emergencies from a place where they would least expect it – a prison.
120
Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act
Oregon Department of Corrections
Dave Cook, Director
Inmates in Oregon have always worked. Prison labor has been used in a variety of capacities, ranging from
making bricks for the first permanent penitentiary in 1866, to supporting the operation of correctional
institutions in areas such as food services, laundry, physical plant maintenance and janitorial services. All
along, the primary goals have been to reduce inmate idleness, reduce costs and teach work skills to
inmates. Historically, sales of products and services were targeted only to government agencies, and profitability was not a primary goal.
Believing that inmates should work at least as hard as the law-abiding citizens who pay taxes for their support, Oregonians voted to require inmates to be at work or in on-the-job training programs full time. The
Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act of 1994 — more commonly referred to as "Measure 17" — became
the driving force of all inmate work activities. The measure requires the Oregon Department of Corrections
to operate in a "businesslike fashion," generate revenues for the private sector or reduce the costs of government and compete with the private sector. In essence, the Department was told to build a viable inmate
workforce within Oregon’s prisons.
Measure 17 created a framework to restructure corrections around work and to normalize prison routines
around a full-time inmate work week. Inmates’ lives are increasingly centered around their work days,
resulting in fundamental changes in the way institutions are run, and challenging the Department to do the
business of corrections differently. Education was also emphasized in Measure 17, furthering the
Department’s refinement of inmate workforce development programs such as basic education, treatment,
training programs and work-based education related to building a marketable labor force.
121
Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act
A New System for Motivating Inmates
To motivate inmates to actively participate in their work and training programs, the Department developed
a system to reward good behavior and productivity, both on and off the job. It is not tied to an hourly wage.
The new Performance Recognition & Award System (PRAS) was implemented in December 1996. It is
designed to reinforce inmates’ pro-social behaviors and motivate them to successfully participate in their
work, treatment and training programming. PRAS supports the development of positive attitudes and
behaviors by inmates and provides real incentives to fully participate in assigned programs. PRAS-qualifying programs include:
• Work and training assignments in which inmates perform a service, produce a product or are otherwise
engaged in activities that emulate non-prison employment
• Treatment assignments that address diagnosed mental or behavioral problems that are barriers to successful employment
• Workforce development assignments intended to remove educational barriers or address personal deficits
that impede employment
Each offender entering the Oregon Department of Corrections undergoes a rigorous assessment process
that evaluates his or her education, work history, mental and physical health and other "risk factors" that
may be barriers to future success (including alcohol and drug abuse, anger management issues, etc.).
Assessment information is used to craft a unique Inmate Incarceration/Transition Plan for each inmate.
This plan guides the inmate’s life for his or her term of incarceration. It includes prison work and workbased education assignments, completing GED or other educational programs, treatment programs and
more.
Inmates are expected to make steady progress toward completion of their Incarceration/Transition Plans.
At the time of release, inmates should have achieved measurable outcomes to help ensure their successful
return to Oregon’s communities and to their families. While inmates cannot be compelled to actively participate in the Incarceration/Transition Plans, PRAS helps to motivate them. Monetary and non-monetary
rewards are tied directly to inmates’ progress in moving up the "stair-steps" toward achievement of their
goals. Only those inmates actively moving forward on their plans receive such benefits as better jobs inside
the institutions, more-desirable housing assignments, increased visitation privileges and an increased
range of canteen items from which to buy.
Also, inmates can’t just show up to their assignments and get credit under PRAS. An inmate who successfully completes all of his or her assignments for that day "passes" or earns points. An inmate who doesn’t satisfactorily complete any or all daily assignments will "fail" and earn no PRAS points that day. This
means that inmates are held accountable for all of their assignments and programs. Fail one and fail them
all. Points also are subtracted on a sliding scale for disciplinary actions depending on the seriousness of
the inmate’s offense.
Monetary awards are based on each inmate’s total monthly PRAS points. A corresponding schedule of
point ranges determines the monetary award deposited in his or her trust account (subject to a 5 percent
withholding for statewide victim restitution funds). The average monthly PRAS award in FY 1998-99 was
$28.
Team goals and awards have also been instituted in all Inmate Work Programs operations. To earn a team
award, inmates must work together to accomplish production and quality goals similar to those in "real-
122
Dave Cook
world" business operations. The goals are team-based, related to established job standards and have measurable objectives that exceed the established job standards. Standards are based primarily on production
levels, but also may include avoidance of injuries, meeting safety standards, efficient use of resources,
quality control, maintaining equipment in operation status, team communication and sharing responsibilities. Team awards are paid out of revenues generated by the work programs. Oregon’s PRAS system has
effectively motivated inmates to actively participate in work and programs that facilitate their successful
transition back to society upon release.
Current Status of Inmate Work and Workforce Development
Nearly all minimum-custody inmates and most medium-custody inmates meet the full-time work requirements of the Oregon Constitution. Full-time participation has risen from approximately 50 percent in 1996
to more than 83 percent in March 2000, even with a rapidly growing inmate population.
Areas of greatest promise for growing meaningful inmate work assignments are new private-sector business partnerships and the growth of current prison businesses into new correctional institutions as they are
built around the state. Engaging the private-sector business community is important to the economic survival of ex-offenders in Oregon’s communities.
Increasing Opportunities for Growth
Significant growth in the number of inmate jobs and the involvement of private-sector businesses inside
prison is limited by such factors as budget, available space and other barriers to private-sector business
involvement. In response, Oregon voters again amended the state’s constitution in late 1999 to create
Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE) as a separate agency, whose administrator reports to the director of
the Oregon Department of Corrections. The ballot measure exempted Inmate Work Programs from some
of the bureaucratic restrictions governing traditional public agencies, giving OCE more freedom to operate in a "businesslike fashion" as mandated by the Oregon Constitution.
The amendment also authorized the director of the Department to consider any potential adverse effects of
inmate labor’s competition with private sector businesses in Oregon when deciding to approve or deny
new or expanded work programs. This flexibility is welcome; without it (prior to 1999), the Department
was forced to compete and potentially compromise the employment of productive, law-abiding citizens.
Summary
Inmates who participate in productive work experiences, on-the-job training and work-based education
while in prison are more successful finding and keeping gainful employment upon release, potentially
reducing repeat offenses and lowering recidivism rates. (Oregon’s three-year recidivism rate is currently
31 percent.)
To that end, the Oregon Department of Corrections has actively developed programs of work, education,
training, treatment and work-based education necessary to develop an inmate labor force with marketable
skills, pro-social behaviors and viable work ethics. Because of this, inmates are more likely to successfully transition back to Oregon’s communities upon release.
Fundamental changes have been made in the way Oregon’s prisons operate to support these programs.
123
New prisons are designed and built with work, education and treatment at the core of the inmates’ daily
activities. In short, the Oregon Department of Corrections has developed an integrated program to motivate, support and engage inmates in developing the skills for success necessary to become productive
members of the community after leaving prison.
124
Prison Industries
South Carolina Department of Corrections
William D. Catoe, Director
South Carolina Prison Industries operate a revenue-based $21 million program providing approximately
1,900 inmate jobs that produce both products and services. Prison Industries divides its resources among
three specific areas: Traditional, Service and PIE (Prison Industries Enhancement).
In the Traditional Program, inmates manufacture license tags, metal products, signage, janitorial products,
mattresses and pillows, printing, inmate clothing, socks, laundry services, office modular panel systems,
seating, office furniture, tire recapping and microfilming of records. The products produced in this program are sold to governmental agencies, school districts and non-profit 501(c)3 organizations.
In the Service Programs, inmates provide a variety of services for both governmental entities and private
sector companies that require no original equipment manufacturing (OEM). Services include packaging
Christmas balls, repairing transmissions, textile recycling, glove packaging, travel reservations, packaging
plastic cutlery, packaging tennis balls, computer repair, recycling tape rulers, laundry services, picture
framing, reupholstery and recycling plastic spools.
In the PIE Program, inmates manufacture finished goods for private sector companies that will be placed
in interstate commerce. This component of original equipment manufacturing (OEM) is permitted by the
Justice Department under strict guidelines.
All these areas provide job skill training and teach inmates how to develop a good work ethic. Inmates
learn to take responsibility for both productivity and quality. Inmate wages range from zero to 50 cents in
Traditional Work, 35 cents to 80 cents in Service Work, and $5.50 per hour to $6.80 per hour in PIE work.
An additional criterion in PIE work requires deductions for taxes, victims’compensation, room and board,
family support and long-term savings. Additionally, inmates working in the PIE Programs are required to
125
Prison Industries
be disciplinary free for at least six months before entering their jobs and must maintain that record while
employed.
The education department also plays an important part of an inmate’s ability to work in the PIE Program.
An inmate must possess either a high school diploma or a GED for PIE employment. If an inmate does
not possess the required educational requirement, he or she must attend night school and attain a GED for
participation in the PIE Program. Needless to say, enrollment in educational programs has increased at the
institutions where PIE is utilized as the Prison Industries work component.
An additional aspect of cooperation between the education department and Prison Industries has been
developed at Evans Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina. At this institution, inmates
manufacture a variety of wire harnesses for private sector companies under the PIE program. The training curve required to become proficient in production has been enhanced by education developing a vocational training program based upon the requirements for the private sector contractor responsible for manufacturing the wire harnesses. After several weeks of vocational training, inmates who satisfactorily complete the course are certified as eligible for employment in the Prison Industries production area. This
arrangement has enabled the private-sector contractor to reduce training time on the production floor and
enabled the contractor to maintain higher production quotas. The net result is quicker productivity for
inmates entering Prison Industries.
Prison Industries, the private sector contractor and the education department developed a system that created a win-win situation for everyone, including the inmate. This model has created benefits and proven
effective for duplication elsewhere.
126
Partnerships with Texas Food Banks
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Wayne Scott, Executive Director
Introduction
In 1995, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) began a collaborative partnership with the
Texas Food Banks in their fight against hunger. This partnership provides for high quality, nutritious foods
for warehousing and distribution to local charities that assist people in need. Units throughout the TDCJ
utilize offender labor in the production, gleaning and salvaging of produce for distribution. The contributions of the agency have significantly enhanced the Texas Food Banks by supplementing their inventory
of primarily boxed food products with fresh produce year round. The food banks distribute the produce
grown and processed by the offenders to more than 3,000 charitable agencies across the state.
Development
Through the innovation and foresight of state leadership, the TDCJ built upon provisions of Chapter 497
of the Texas Government Code to implement a program providing for meaningful work opportunities and
rehabilitation for offenders, and the enhancement of social welfare in the community. The agency established an administrative directive with procedures for the request, approval and operation of community
service projects and public service programs in which offender labor could be used to service governmental agencies and non-profit organizations. TDCJ policy stipulated offender eligibility criteria, offender management requirements, health and safety concerns, as well as the logistics for project requests and
agency reporting. This groundwork gave rise to the partnership between the TDCJ and the Texas Food
Banks with far-reaching benefits that would surpass all expectations.
127
Partnerships With Texas Food Banks
Implementation-Texas Fresh Approach
The TDCJ initially joined forces with the Texas Association of Second Harvest Food Banks in 1995. The
Texas Fresh Approach program began with the TDCJ growing fresh nutritious vegetables for the Houston
Food Bank. The agency furnished agricultural expertise, land and offender labor. The food bank provided for the growing costs, containers, transportation, storage, accounting and distribution of the produce to
the charitable agencies. In the first year, over 630,000 pounds of produce was grown and distributed in
the Houston Food Bank service area.
With the success of the Houston project, TDCJ expanded its involvement in the Texas Fresh Approach program to include food banks across Texas. In addition to unit farms growing vegetables in the Houston
area, projects began in Dallas, San Antonio, Victoria, Marlin and Amarillo. Several prison units with
smaller gardens have also been included in the program. With donations of seed, fertilizer and other farming expenses provided by the local community and food banks, these units have increased their unit garden operations to help provide for the needy in their community. Within the TDCJ, 13 units participate
in the Texas Fresh Approach program, along with another 11 units that provide produce from smaller unit
gardens.
Texas Second Chance
In 1997, the TDCJ added the Texas Second Chance program to its food bank projects. The agency provides a consistent offender work force to assist the food banks in salvaging and sorting food. On a regular basis, food banks receive large donations from food drives, major grocery suppliers and other organizations. The products must be sorted, inspected and repackaged before being distributed to the charitable
organizations. Prior to the TDCJ program, the food banks lacked sufficient labor to process all of the
received products and subsequently had to turn away food donations that could have benefited the needy
in the community.
The Houston Food Bank was the first to benefit from a work force provided by a local state jail. Since
that time, the Texas Second Chance Program has expanded to benefit food banks in Amarillo, Austin,
Beaumont, Dallas, McAllen, San Antonio and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Remarkably, food banks
throughout the state have reported that their product distribution has increased by 50%, and as great as
100% in some cases due to the contributions of the 10 to 25 offenders who comprise the workforce at each
facility.
In addition to the work they provide in the product recovery area, offenders receive training in a wide array
of warehouse jobs. Offenders are stationed in areas of inventory control, distribution and receiving. Those
offenders who show aptitude and a willingness to learn are offered training in forklift operation and can
acquire O.S.H.A. certification. In an effort to provide realistic job search experience, notice is posted of
new positions as they become available. Offenders submit applications and interviews are conducted.
With each mastered job skill and added responsibility, the offenders develop a high level of self-esteem
that is evidenced in the work product they provide for the food banks.
Texas Gleaning Project
The Texas Gleaning Project is a third partnership through which the TDCJ assists Texas food banks. Each
year 20% of the food grown for human consumption in the United States is wasted. The food is either left
128
Wayne Scott
unharvested in the fields or dumped in landfills. The Department currently contracts with governmental
entities in numerous counties in South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande Valley area where offender labor
can be used to glean vegetable fields and fruit orchards. Offender labor is utilized to harvest and box certain edible crops from privately owned fields as authorized by the owner. This program allows for the harvesting of leftover produce that would otherwise be lost. The San Antonio Food Bank and the Food Bank
of the Rio Grande Valley provide crating and transportation for delivery of the harvested vegetables to the
qualified organizations for distribution to the needy. The agency also assists the food banks with the boxing, bagging and sorting of various commodities to benefit agencies in these counties.
Outcomes
The collaborative effort between the TDCJ and the Texas food banks has proven beneficial and rewarding
to all involved. Not only do the food banks receive the highly desired fresh produce that provides additional nutrition for the needy, they benefit from the offender work forces that make it possible to process
all the food product that is received. Through these three programs, the offenders make a positive impact
on the community and gain a sense of responsibility as well as marketable skills that will better their
opportunities upon release.
Through the Texas Fresh Approach program, the TDCJ has distributed nearly 8.5 million pounds of product to the food banks across the state. Unit gardens have provided approximately 759,000 pounds of vegetables to local food banks and soup kitchens. Since the inception of the Texas Gleaning Project in 1996,
the agency has provided an additional 2.5 million pounds of vegetables to the food banks.
The Texas Second Chance program has proved the most comprehensive of all the programs. Through the
work forces provided by the TDCJ over the past three years, the food banks have seen over 107.5 million
pounds of product salvaged, sorted, cleaned and repackaged for distribution to charitable organizations.
In addition to providing for the needy in the community, the Texas Second Chance program offers an enormous rehabilitation opportunity for offenders. The offender participants acquire job skills, establish a
good work ethic and gain a sense of responsibility. In turn, they develop high self-esteem and a heightened respect for others. To cement the picture, offenders visit a food bank client agency each month to see
first hand where the food is distributed and those whom they have helped. Many offenders have noted the
strong sense of accomplishment and contribution they have received from their work in the program.
An important aspect of the Texas Second Chance program is the aftercare component that follows the completion of the offenders’ sentences. Offenders receive certificates noting hours worked along with their
forklift certification (if applicable) which is helpful in the job search. In addition, the food banks are innovative in collaborating with their numerous agencies to help strengthen the safety net for these newly
released individuals. Many supportive businesses and organizations have been receptive to considering
these people for employment and helping the ex-offenders continue on a positive path. Those who have
hired Texas Second Chance graduates include H.E.B. Grocery Company, the City of Austin, Dr. Pepper
Bottling Company, Bristol Suites, the Houston Food Bank, the Capitol Area Food Bank and the Food Bank
of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. With a job and a sufficient income, a releasee is less likely to commit
other offenses. Thus, the Department is able to satisfy its primary goal for the partnership and also positively impact the state through the reduction of recidivism.
129
Conclusion
Through the food bank programs, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice not only promotes positive
change in offender behavior and assists in the reintegration of offenders into society, but also contributes
to the welfare of citizens across the state. The partnership affords offenders the opportunity to learn good
work habits and marketable skills. Through challenging work, offenders experience how worthwhile and
fulfilling helping others can be. The programs also allow offenders to make a contribution to society by
giving back to the community while helping to eliminate hunger. The partnership between the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and the Texas food banks is a statewide collaboration at its best.
130
Computer Recovery Program
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Wayne Scott, Executive Director
Introduction
Within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), one of the main objectives of Texas Correctional
Industries is to provide select offenders with the opportunity to acquire marketable skills while incarcerated and thus equip them for reintegration into society. In an effort to meet this objective, Texas
Correctional Industries has reviewed the labor markets in the state’s major cities to identify industries with
the greatest projected need for skilled workers. Not surprisingly, the computer industry was near the top
of the list. Prompted by innovative and responsive leadership, Texas Correctional Industries initiated a
Computer Recovery Program in October 1998 with the concept of taking discarded computers and refurbishing them for donation to disadvantaged school districts throughout Texas.
Development
The Computer Recovery Program began as a pilot program at the Wynne Unit in Huntsville, with six
employees, 20 offenders and 20 computers donated to the TDCJ by a transportation company. Once refurbished by the offenders, the computers were given to a Huntsville elementary school to replace those previously destroyed in a fire.
With the passage of Senate Bill 1105 by the 76th Texas Legislature, effective September 1999, the
Computer Recovery Program gained the support of state leadership. This legislation established provisions in Chapters 497 and 2175 of the Texas Government Code for the disposition, repair and resale of surplus data processing equipment. Departments of state, county and local governments and political subdivisions were provided a disposal method for surplus and obsolete data processing equipment, absent any
financial obligations. The TDCJ received authorization to provide the repaired or refurbished data pro-
131
Computer Recovery Program
cessing equipment at little or no cost to school districts across Texas. Based on the legislative standards,
Texas Correctional Industries developed procedures for the Computer Recovery Program, which progressed to full operation and began accepting equipment in October 1999.
Implementation
Texas Correctional Industries targets participants who have a good disciplinary record and are within two
to five years of release. To participate in the program, offenders must have successfully completed a sixmonth Computer Maintenance Technician course offered by the Windham School District of the TDCJ or
a junior college course equivalent. As the Computer Recovery Program reached full operation, 45 offenders were selected and prepared to begin work.
To promote the program, Texas Correctional Industries sent letters to every Texas school superintendent
informing them of Senate Bill 1105, the Computer Recovery Program, and the benefits the program
offered to their students. Remarkably, 80 school districts responded with requests for more than 2,600
refurbished computers. Schools across Texas also contributed to the program with donations of their surplus data processing equipment.
In addition to the donations from Texas school districts, the Computer Recovery Program has received
donations from numerous state agencies including the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas
Department of Health, the Texas Department of Human Services, the State Comptroller’s Office, the Texas
Workforce Commission and the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, surplus equipment has
been received from the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, Sam Houston State University,
Tarleton State University, as well as other colleges and universities. Donated equipment includes IBM and
IBM clone personal computers, Apple Computers, dot matrix and laser printers, scanners, mainframe tape
drives and disk storage units, fax machines and typewriters. These donations have ranged from one computer or printer to as many as 100 pallets of warehoused equipment. The Houston Independent School
District has over 400 pallets of equipment being prepared for transfer.
When the Computer Recovery Program receives equipment, information stored on the computers is
removed by supervisors prior to the offenders accessing the equipment. Afterward, it is the responsibility of the offenders to inspect and test each component. Peripherals (monitors, mice and printers) are visually inspected for damage, then tested for working status. Central processing units are evaluated for damage and level of technology. System components such as motherboards, hard drives and network cards are
also tested for operational status. Viable components are placed into inventory. Irreparable and obsolete
peripherals and components are recycled through existing contracts for metals, ground plastic and circuit
boards. The offenders then perform the mechanics necessary to upgrade the machines. Texas Correctional
Industries supervisors perform all the installation of computer language and software. If parts must be purchased to refurbish a computer, the cost is recovered from the receiving school district.
Outcomes
The Computer Recovery Program has received an overwhelming positive response from both its suppliers and customers. By donating to the program, state agencies and universities alleviate the difficult task
of storing or disposing of surplus computer equipment. As of March 31, 2000, the Computer Recovery
Program has received over 500 tons of surplus computer equipment. Approximately 60% of the equipment has been recycled, with the remaining 40% used as parts inventory.
132
Wayne Scott
From the efforts of Texas Correctional Industries and the offender workers, over 510 computers and printers have been placed in classrooms across the state, providing the schools a cost savings of over $134,000.
These computers are being used in pre-kindergarten classes, in elementary and secondary computer labs
and in alternative schools for troubled students. Letters from school administrators and teachers resound
with appreciation for the program and the computers it provides.
Currently, 64 offenders participate in the Computer Recovery Program. To meet the demands for refurbished equipment, Texas Correctional Industries is preparing to expand the Computer Recovery Program
to include a facility at the Powledge Unit in Palestine and another at the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville
for women.
The offenders in the program receive marketable skills that will improve their opportunities once released
from prison. Texas Correctional Industries provides on-the-job training in dismantling, troubleshooting
and reconditioning computers. The training is structured to prepare each offender to eventually test for A+
Certification. A+ Certification is a nationally recognized testing program sponsored by the Computing
Technology Industry Association that certifies the competency of service technicians in the computer
industry. Apple Computers, Inc., Compaq Computers and IBM are contributing members of the association.
To further the positive impact of the program, Texas Correctional Industries is working to inform companies within the computer industry about the Computer Recovery Program and the resource of skilled workers it provides. The focus of this effort is to develop a process through which offenders released from the
program have established contacts with prospective employers.
Conclusion
The Computer Recovery Program exemplifies an innovative, cost effective approach to meeting today’s
challenges. Through the program, Texas Correctional Industries helps alleviate a statewide problem by
providing a useful place for thousands of obsolete computers. More importantly, the program provides a
solution to the need for computers in Texas classrooms, as evidenced by the numerous requests from
schools across the state. In addition, the Computer Recovery Program provides a means to equip incarcerated offenders with marketable skills in a growing career field and better prepare them for reintegration
into society. Thus, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Texas Correctional Industries continue
their commitment to combat recidivism and positively impact the State of Texas.
133
134
Inmate Suicide Observation Assistant Program
Missouri Department of Corrections
Dora B. Schriro, Director
Introduction
Suicide is a serious problem in all correctional settings. It is a leading cause of death in correctional and
detention facilities, and is the number one cause of unnatural death in medium to small jails. The rate of
suicide is generally between two to nine times higher among the incarcerated when compared to the population at large. Suicide represents a significant risk to offenders as well as a potential risk to the safety
of correctional staff and to the security of an institution.
The Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) is dedicated to significantly reducing the rate of successful suicide and suicide attempts in its facilities. Among the ideas which have been forwarded to improve
suicide prevention services is the Inmate Suicide Observation Assistant Program, a program in which
offenders assist in monitoring their peers to detect and report possible signs of self-harm. After careful
consideration, it was decided that placing trained inmate suicide observers on duty around the clock could
help the Department lower the risk of lethal suicide attempts.
There are a number of advantages to this type of program. First, the program allows an individual in each
housing unit of a facility to be exclusively devoted to the assessment of suicidality on an ongoing basis,
24-hours a day. Vigilance on this scale is not typically possible utilizing correctional staff alone. Second,
the suicide observers receive specific training in the detection of suicidality that at least rivals that provided to a typical staff member. Every offender who wishes to become an inmate suicide observer assistant must pass an examination specific to knowledge of self-harm issues. In reference to demonstrating
an understanding of suicidality, this is a higher standard than that which is typically required of correctional staff.
135
Inmate Suicide Observation Assistant Program
It is also believed that offender observers may have an advantage in communicating with other offenders.
The assumption is that a peer may more likely be the recipient of forthright communication concerning
self-harm than a staff member would be. Incarcerated offenders may have better "inside information,"
potentially being more aware of what is going on with a specific offender in an institution than a typical
corrections officer would be. In general, the implementation of this type of program promotes conversation and awareness at an inmate-to-inmate level regarding suicidality and suicide prevention. In fact the
emphasis on suicide prevention, which accompanies putting the program in place, heightens institutional
awareness of suicidality at all levels.
The program also has benefits for the participating offender. It presents to the offender the opportunity to
be both productive and prosocial. Offenders are encouraged to take on a significant level of responsibility and engage in behavior that assists others. Both these activities may have rehabilitative benefits that
extend beyond the practical benefits of the program.
Where was the Observer Program Implemented?
In the Missouri DOC, the Inmate Suicide Observation Assistant (ISOA) program was implemented in two
phases. The first phase involved implementation in designated areas of the institutions where offenders
were felt to be at a relatively higher risk of potential self-harm. Those areas included any specialized mental health housing areas, disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody units and
housing units for receiving and orientation.
The rationale for the inclusion of mental health housing units in the first phase of implementation is clear.
Those with serious mental illnesses are at a greater risk to engage in self-harming behavior. Disciplinary
and administrative segregation received attention in the first implementation phase given the high number
of suicide gestures and attempts that have historically occurred in segregation, as well as concerns about
the effect of segregation on the mental health of inmates. Similarly, offenders seeking protective custody
often feel intimidated in a correctional environment and may lack the mental or emotional resources to
deal successfully with incarceration, leaving them at a higher risk of self-harm. In receiving and orientation units, staff are often dealing with offenders with whom they are unfamiliar. These offenders are also
experiencing the stresses of being transferred to a new and unfamiliar living situation, an environment that
increases the risk of suicide. The second phase of implementation involved the extension of this program
to all general population-housing units in the Missouri DOC.
Selection of ISOA Workers
Given the level of responsibility of the position as well as the possible consequences of installing poorly
qualified offenders into these positions, the ISOA candidates are carefully screened. It is imperative to
screen out any individual who has significant history of mental instability or a diagnosable mental disorder as indicated by a high mental health score in the internal classification system. In addition, any individual with a history of having engaged in a suicide gesture or attempt during any phase of incarceration
is eliminated from consideration.
It was also felt that ISOA workers should have a good record of institutional conduct. Candidates are
excluded if they have had a major conduct violation during the past two years. Major conduct violations
in the Missouri DOC include murder/manslaughter, assault, possession of dangerous contraband, escape,
riot, inciting to riot, forcible sexual misconduct, arson and organized disobedience.
136
Dora B. Schriro
Participants are required to have obtained a GED. Because of the investment being made in training,
offenders with less than one year remaining on their sentences are ineligible. The ISOA worker positions
are compensated at a premium rate of pay to encourage the interest of qualified candidates.
Training
One of the most important aspects of the program is the provision of training for the workers. It is obvious that training is crucial for the success of the program. Without proper training there exists an increased
risk of lack of recognition of suicide warning signs or of inadequate responses by ISOA workers. The
mental health department of the Missouri DOC developed a specialized training program for workers
which includes information on the following topics:
• Duties of the ISOA Workers
• Stress Factors Commonly Leading to Suicidality
• Profiles of Suicidal Offenders
• Warning Signs of Suicidal Behavior
• Identification of Depressive Illnesses
• Basics of Good Communication
• Facts and Myths regarding Suicide
The training program is as comprehensive as that given to correctional officers during basic training and
generally takes approximately four hours to complete. The offenders are required to demonstrate mastery
of the materials by passing a multiple-choice examination. A score of 70% or better is considered to be a
passing score.
Responsibilities of ISOA’s
ISOA workers are assigned to housing unit areas in eight-hour shifts. They are expected to make tours of
their assigned areas at irregular intervals, to deter predictability. Communication with other offenders is
encouraged and valued, as the potential for open offender-to-offender communication is a major advantage of the program. Obviously, ISOA workers are required to immediately report to corrections staff any
observed behavior that suggests the possibility of self-harm. The workers are not expected to be involved
in any of the emergent procedures that might occur after the report is made.
ISOA workers keep a logbook documenting their observations and insuring accountability. The workers
are required to note in writing any behavior or action exhibited by an offender that might require an evaluation by a mental health provider. Entries are limited to simple observations of behavior rather than conclusions regarding the intentions of those being observed. The offender includes basic information in the
logs, such as the date and time of the observation, the name, register number and location of offender and
the badge number of the corrections officer on duty.
Results of the Program
The Inmate Suicide Observation Assistant program has been successfully implemented in all institutional
housing units in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Given that full implementation of the program
was not achieved until June, 1999, and given that completed suicide is a relatively low frequency event, it
is too early to be able to empirically evaluate the results of the program. The Department can report that
there were seven suicides in 1998, a decrease to four in 1999 and none to date in 2000. The ISOAprogram
137
will be evaluated on a number of objective measures, including the rate of completed suicides and the
number of suicide watches initiated by the ISOA workers. Implementing the program appears to have
raised the awareness of both offenders and staff regarding the issue of suicidality, which should have positive effects in deterring, completed suicides.
138
Chapter 5
Victim Impact
139
140
Victim Impact Panels: The Restorative Justice Way
Introduction
Cognitive learning approaches in the Iowa Department of Corrections focus on criminal thinking errors.
Only recently has the Department considered the impact of crime on victims as a learning tool. As a correctional system, the value of connecting offenders with the harm they have done to victims should be the
foundation for our programs. Yet Iowa had not connected that dot in the program structure.
A restorative justice model reframes the Department’s work with the victims of violent crimes to help
offenders understand the harm they have done. Notably, offenders have trouble making changes in their
lives until they understand that they have harmed another person. As offenders begin to internalize treatment goals, they struggle with the need for change and often times with his or her own abusive past.
• Victim Impact Panels have measurable benefits in understanding criminal thinking errors
• Victim Impact Panels offer a focused strategy to approach offender treatment
• Victim Impact Panels increase the offenders’ readiness for change
• Victim Impact Panels make cognitive learning a teaching tool
Iowa’s first steps to improve the understanding of criminal harm to victims through Victim Impact Panels
have proven worthwhile for offenders of personal as well as property crimes.
The Problem
As Albert Einstein observed, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them." Through victim programs, offenders learn to connect their
Victim Impact
141
Victim Impact Panels
feelings with their cognitive learning to change their behavior. Cognitive learning supported by victim
impact panels challenges offenders to respond to criminal thinking errors. Offenders need to be motivated to change. Understanding the harm felt by the victim is a key to developing offender motivation.
Author Stephen Covey teaches powerful lessons in his 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. He suggests
major problems such as crime require a new level of thinking or understanding - a new paradigm. Covey
says if we want to make small improvements in ourselves, we should work on behavior and attitudes. If
we want to make major shifts in how we think and behave, we must change the way we are thinking.
Victim impact panels help criminals learn from victims how offenders’ acts altered their life.
It is not only what happens to victims that affects their behavior, it is their interpretation of what happens
to them. If offenders can learn from victims, then they are on the road to significant improvement.
Restorative justice programs shift the focus of justice from offender to victim. Victim impact panels are
structured to provide personal face-to-face exchanges between victims and offenders. These are not depersonalized conversations or vicarious television experiences. Through the personal exchange process, victims talk directly to offenders to:
• Tell their stories and to be heard
• Resolve crime issues
• Help prevent further crime through sharing their stories with offenders
As part of an expanding restorative justice program, a Victim and Restorative Justice Administrator is
working within institutions to expand an understanding of a victim’s experience.
When the State prosecutes an offender, the outcomes are usually probation or prison and eventual release
from probation or prison. Cognitive learning in its current form is non-personal and allows offenders to
avoid accountability and responsibility. To develop a more useful approach, the Department is helping
offenders connect the mental and emotional dots in order to realize harm done to victims and the community. Digging through the aftermath of the crime and being involved in learning through treatment, grief
work, support work and victim awareness is the tough part as well as a life altering passage. By stirring
up feelings in offenders through preparation, hearing victims’stories, dialoguing with victims and through
debriefing after the panel, offenders report a genuine, life-changing experience. This process opens up
offenders’ willingness to learn and identifies a thirst for victim knowledge.
To prepare for victim panels, offenders participate in victim empathy/awareness classes for several weeks.
When they begin these classes, they describe their ability to feel as clogged dirt on a screen. As they learn
more about victims through books, videos, lectures, etc., some of the dirt seems washed away. After hearing and talking with victims, their "screens" are clear and wide open with improved understanding of victims and offenders.
Victim Impact Panels – Actual Experience
Victim panels increase awareness for offenders regarding the long-term physical and emotional damage
that crime inflicts on victims. The Department’s goals include helping offenders understand the impact of
their crimes on victims and communities and offering victims a structured, positive outlet through which
142
Victim Impact
Kip Kautzky
to share their personal experiences. The main objective is to give faces to victims and offer offenders a
view of victims as real people with families, friends, hopes and dreams.
Victim Impact Panels include a 3-tiered approach when presenting to offenders who have had some victim empathy/awareness education. These include:
• The Victim and Restorative Justice Administrator meets with a group of approximately 15 offenders one
week prior to bringing in the panel. This preparation time focuses on waking feelings and emotions and
discussing why offenders may be shut down. Offenders are given a general idea of what to expect to hear:
not judging, name-calling, or blaming, but victims’ heartfelt journeys of recovery and healing from criminal acts.
• A week later the same facilitator brings three victims, supported by a victim advocate, for a two-hour
presentation on the impact criminal behavior has had on their lives. A dialogue between victims and
offenders is facilitated after each speaker. With moist eyes, heartfelt expressions are shared between the
two groups. The offenders are left with five questions to answer about what they heard the victims share.
The papers are returned to the facilitator the following day. It is understood that the victims may choose
to read them.
• The next morning the facilitator returns to the prison for a one-hour debriefing where offenders express
life-altering changes in thinking and feeling—how they now see what they have done through victim
"lenses." Offenders seem enormously motivated to change and not have one more victim. The offenders
are also overwhelmed with respect for the courage displayed by the victims. Mental and emotional dots
seem connected and indeed offenders learn the harm caused by their criminal acts. New paradigms have
emerged!
Restorative Justice and Victim Impact
Historically, the criminal justice system has focused on punishing the person who committed the crime.
Seldom were victims’ voices heard. Criminal justice became the State versus the criminal without considering the victim who was harmed. The development and use of victim panels has been powerful for
both victims and offenders. Victim Impact Panels reflect the guiding principles of restorative justice identified at the National Conference of National Institute of Justice in 1996:
1. Crime is an offense against human relationships.
2. Victims and the community are central to justice processes.
3. The first priority of the justice process is to assist victims.
4. The second priority is to restore the community, to the degree possible.
5. The offender has personal responsibility to victims and to the community for crimes committed.
6. The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a result of the restorative justice
experience.
7. Stakeholders share responsibility for restorative justice through partnerships for action.
Victim Impact Panels permit victims and offenders to learn together when restorative justice principles
guide the efforts. By working with victims and victim advocates for Victim Impact Panels, the Department
is increasing communication and improving understanding of their respective roles in the criminal justice
system. This may help begin to repair misunderstandings and mistrust.
Victim Impact
143
Victim Impact Panels
Victims’ participation in such programs gives them a sense that they have had a positive impact on both
the accountability of offenders and a reduction of further victimization. This positive impact helps victims
and the community recover.
Conclusions
From actual experiences, victims motivate criminals to change the way they think and see the world.
Offenders learn that there are no victimless crimes. In addition to offenders’ cognitive preparation, victims provide a catalyst to stop criminal behavior. The victims, offenders and community all win.
Victim panels give victims a voice in the corrections system. Victims serve as "teachers" as a part of victim impact classes that sensitize offenders to the human impact of their criminal offenses. Offenders learn
that they are not the main focus, but that the victim and the community and their families are the central
issue.
By using restorative justice principles, the victim is permitted to give the offender a chance to release the
shame and then accept responsibility for the crime, and finally to stop committing further criminal acts.
Both victims and offenders see a hope of recovery in offenders’ accepting responsibility for their behavior. And finally, power is exchanged from the offender and his/her act to the victim, which in the end creates a balance for the participants in these programs.
144
Victim Impact
Victim/Offender Impact Program: A Balanced
Approach to Restorative Justice
Maryland Division of Correction
William W. Sondervan, Commissioner
Introduction
Until recently, the American criminal justice system in general, and corrections in particular, were focused
on offenders to the near exclusion of victims. In the modern state, the government stands in for the victim. The state becomes the injured entity. Prosecution, determination of guilt and punishment are carried
out by government representatives, not the victim. However, historically, and in some cultures to this day,
crime and punishment are closely linked to victim impact.
The Problem and Attempts to Redress the Balance
Too often, victims have felt excluded from "the system" that focuses on the offender. Victims were often
left with no means to share the impact the crime had on their lives and their community. Only with passage of recent laws have victims been given rights to participate in victim notification and open parole
hearings, and allowed to give verbal impact statements at trials and parole hearings.
Many offenders see their victims as mere targets of opportunity. They think the victims, in some way, lead
to their own victimization by being "in the wrong place at the wrong time." Offenders have few opportunities to see and hear from victims and hear that they, the victims, are not responsible for what happened
to them. Rather, that the offender who chose to commit the crime is responsible.
Victims and members of their community need to be part of and have an active role in the criminal justice
system. The current system’s structure and focus, as opposed to restructuring a system that is both victim
and community inclusive, is giving way to a more comprehensive system, and a more balanced approach.
Victim Impact
145
Victim/Offender Impact Program
The new focus for criminal justice agencies is to assist offenders to move beyond themselves and begin to
consider the pain and suffering of others (i.e., victims, families of both parties and the community). Until
recently, there has been no relationship between offender and victim and offenders have made no amends
to the victim. Treatment and retribution are one-dimensional concepts. From the victim’s point of view,
offenders have not been held accountable to their community and have not accepted responsibility for their
crimes against real people, with real pain.
The Division’s Program
Emotional development requires that one learns to accept responsibility and accountability for one’s self.
Crime is not just the problem of the offender. The division’s Victim/Offender Impact Classes and
Education Program (VOICE) design will bring both an emotional and service balance to the Division of
Correction’s mission. This program will allow victims to have more of a voice in the criminal justice system and provide a means to sensitize the offender to the victims’ pain and loss.
Offenders need a program that is designed to provide them with a very personal perspective on the agony
that they inflict upon innocent victims. This can be accomplished by allowing offenders to come face-toface with crime victims or family members who tell their side of the story and how it has changed their
lives forever.
Some victims desire to participate in activities such as victim impact panels to help with their healing
process. Many have come to terms with the reality that while they may not retrieve stolen property or bring
their loved one back, maybe they can touch a chord in the offender in a positive way and keep them from
inflicting pain on someone else.
Besides the stated benefits to both offenders and victims, it is hoped that after completing the VOICE program, offenders will gain more insight that will impact on their actions. With more knowledge, and with
a greater sensitivity, this program will affect their behavior as they prepare for the transition from incarceration to their community.
To accomplish this task of inclusion, education and sensitizing, three goals have been established for the
VOICE program.
• Develop a balanced alternative approach by addressing crime that includes two of the primary stakeholders and elevates the role of the victim (e.g., victims, offenders, criminal justice professionals, families
and communities)
• Provide information and services to support the victim, that help repair harm done by crime and assist
in their ability to facilitate the healing process
• Manage opportunities that increase victim empathy and improve offender awareness; offer assistance and
training that improve offender behavior and decision making skills
Specific activities can be controlled and tracked to analyze outcomes. The benefit of setting such objectives is to provide specific service and operational activities to be measured and evaluated. The following
objectives will support key management tasks.
• Schedule 12 monthly victim and offender impact classes and panels per year.
• Classes will allow offenders to discuss and learn about the impact and/or harm caused by ten
types of crime.
• Each panel session will allow victims to tell their stories and inform offenders of the impact and
146
Victim Impact
William W. Sondervan
harm of crime.
• Schedule and enroll 36 victims per year or three victims per monthly cycle, as awareness panelists.
• Enroll a maximum of 40 offenders into program each month.
• Refer offenders to either the social work or psychology departments to assist with any emotional problems caused by this experience.
• Administer pre-program and post-program surveys to each offender participant.
• Administer post-program survey to each victim participant.
Method of Operation
The Division of Correction offender population should hear what happens to the victims of crime. The
Division does not intend that victim impact panels or classes replace conventional sanctions which are
effective. VOICE is offered to enhance and supplement such efforts by placing offenders face-to-face with
real people whose lives have been permanently changed by someone who has committed a crime. In addition to victims telling their stories, offenders will be required to attend ten crime impact classes. Each class
will address various issues of crime and attempt to enhance the offender’s knowledge of crime and its
impact. Victims do not speak to groups in which their offender is present. There is no interaction between
the victims and offenders during the presentation, although a question and answer period may follow, if
authorized by the victims and staff.
Strict application criteria have been established to protect victims and insure the integrity of the VOICE
program. The criteria for victims includes:
• Victims, victims’ family members and/or representatives of the victims’community:
• The preclusion from program participation of any individual; associated with or the victim of a sex crime,
as an adult or child;
• A referral by a recognized victim service agency;
• A minimum age of 21 years old;
• The offender of the crime must not be housed at the program site;
• Completion of a background check; and,
• Successful completion of the division’s registered volunteer or citizen participant registration.
Offenders’ participation criteria includes:
• exclusion of any offender who has been convicted of any sex crime or any crime against a child;
• exclusion of any offender with a conviction or charge of an escape or attempted escape;
• having a confirmed release date within 18 months or within 18 months of a mandatory release date and/or
housed at a minimum security level status; and
• meet the guidelines of the transition and pre-release services’ program.
Victims and offenders meeting the established criteria are reviewed by staff and receive an orientation to
insure that they fully understand the program policy and agree to follow the established rules. Victims are
invited to observe at least one presentation before they decide to participate. The victim panels are carefully organized and controlled to minimize additional pain to victims. A division moderator is always present to facilitate the discussion.
Generally, victims report that the experience helped their healing process. They also feel that by telling
their stories they may be preventing additional persons from being victimized. Inmate participants report
Victim Impact
147
Victim/Offender Impact Program
that victim panels helped them in several ways, including:
• Allowed them to consider the pain and suffering crime causes others
• Helped them to move beyond their own "bad luck"
• Provided images of real people being hurt by crime
• Served to break down the denial of destructive and criminal behavior
Evaluation of Program Effectiveness
Victims’ impact programs are relatively new and the evaluation results are somewhat limited. There have
been studies on the impact of victims’ programs on the behavior of Driving while Intoxicated (DWI)
offenders. A study in Ohio found significant reduction in re-arrest for DWI offenders who participated in
victim impact panels. Both offender and victim participants will be asked to complete written pre-andpost evaluations of the VOICE program, including criteria on the leniency of state laws, consideration of
victim impact and changed attitudes toward crime, incarceration and the correctional system.
Although the measurement of recidivism is both complicated and difficult to attribute to individual programs, one measure of the victims’program success will be the re-offending rate of program participants.
Program Implementation Update
The Brockbridge Correctional Facility and the Maryland Correctional Training Center were selected as
sites to pilot test the VOICE programs’operation and impact on behavior. The program has recently completed two cycles of operation at each institution. Each institutional program enrolled and graduated from
18 to 20 participants per class cycle. The victim impact panel has averaged two victim presenters per class
cycle.
Offender and victim post program surveys indicate the program is experiencing some success in achieving its goals:
• To educate and sensitize the offender to the harm his acts have caused others; and,
• To provide the victim an opportunity to lessen their pain and truly feel a part of the system.
Victim service agencies have been very impressed with the program’s structure and operation. Other
Maryland jurisdictions have adopted the program for implementation in their correctional program.
148
Victim Impact
Automating with VINE
In December of 1995 the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) affirmed a commitment to improving services provided to victims of crime by issuing a directive to the Office of Victim Services to evaluate the victim notification process and make recommendations regarding improvements.
At the time, the Department had a system of notification in place that was centralized for the Division of
Probation and Parole and decentralized for the Division of Adult Institutions. The result was that probation and parole provided notification to victims regarding parole and parole hearing activities and each of
22 institutions provided notification regarding an offender’s activity in the institution. At the time,
Missouri was one of only five states using both centralized and de-centralized notification systems.
An evaluation of the system revealed the need to improve the notification service to victims. A recommendation was made to centralize the entire notification process by creating a Victim Services unit and
staffing it with people who wanted to work with crime victims. The recommendation included a plan to
automate the victim notification process with a system known as Victim Information Notification
Everyday, (more commonly referred to as VINE).
The Missouri DOC was the first to apply for federal funding through the Victims of Crime Act for an automated notification system. In November of 1996 the contract for an automated notification system was
awarded to the VINE Company and a contract for service signed, making Missouri the fourth state to contract with VINE.
In preparation for the implementation of VINE, the Victim Service Unit was staffed with five people who
received special training in victim advocacy and trauma. The staff and five summer interns examined over
24,000 offender files to ensure every effort had been made to identify and locate victims of offenders incar-
Victim Impact
149
Automating with VINE
cerated in all DOC facilities. The above was a crucial step in building an accurate and inclusive victim
database.
During the design phase of the project, DOC staff were responsible for determining how to extract information from the offender booking and tracking system and put it in a file format that the VINE interface
computer could read. A determination also had to be made about what offender data was necessary for
notification and how new information on offender status changes would be sent. A decision was made
early on that the VINE Company would provide notification on every offender status change that required
notification as opposed to other criminal justice agencies who only use the VINE system to notify of
releases or escapes. A plan also had to be developed that would enable the DOC to notify victims of
domestic violence even if the offender was not serving a sentence associated with the domestic violence.
This required close cooperation between victim service staff and information system staff. In November
1999 the Missouri DOC received a certificate of recognition from the National Domestic Violence Hotline
for "promoting a violence free America" by including domestic violence victims in the VINE system.
As can be expected with any large automation project, the Missouri DOC and the VINE Company encountered several problems during the design and implementation phase. Approximately nine months into the
project the DOC decided to implement a new information system resulting in a delay of almost two years.
In addition there were several changes in personnel assigned to the project. With each delay and change
of staff pieces of the design were lost or changed. Consequently, several adjustments were necessary during the testing phase prior to going on-line in January 2000.
The Missouri DOC has a "closed system" meaning that we must first enter victims before they can register for notification. However, we are required by law to notify victims of dangerous felons even if they do
not register. Thus, the system had to be adapted to provide written notification to all victims of dangerous
felons. All victims who register receive telephonic notification of parole hearing dates, releases to the community, escape, death, return to custody and transfer of an offender from one institution to another.
Although, the DOC is not required to notify victims of transfers between institutions, victims - particularly homicide survivors - expressed a desire to be notified of transfers, so that element was included in the
system. After telephonic notification is made, a written confirmation letter follows. The written notification is provided to comply with statutory requirements. Additionally, only victims who register may call
the VINE’S toll-free number 24 hours per day to receive offender information such as parole hearing dates,
scheduled release dates and custody locations.
During the conversion to the VINE system, DOC is maintaining the manual notification system as a check
to ensure victims are being provided with accurate notification information by VINE. Since coming online with the system it has become clear that notification provided by VINE occurs much more quickly.
After the system has been operational for six months, necessary changes will be made.
While one could expect that not everyone would be pleased with a system designed to serve a large number of clients, the complaints received have been a clear indication that a comprehensive method of evaluating customer satisfaction with the VINE system needed to be developed. Victim services staff are
preparing a survey that will be sent to every victim so that the DOC can determine whether notification
services provided by VINE are meeting the needs of crime victims in the state of Missouri.
The DOC has received complaints from victims regarding several aspects of the system. There are some
who do not want to receive telephonic notification and prefer written notification only. Others have com-
150
Victim Impact
Dora B. Schriro
plained that it is difficult to register. Victims with rotary phones cannot register and there have been problems with cordless phones. Victims who live in primarily rural areas have also had difficulty registering.
Additionally, there have been complaints about not being able to "get through" to the VINE toll-free number.
It would seem that a system such as VINE would be empowering to victims since it makes information so
readily available and prevents victims from having to rely on criminal justice agencies to provide crucial
information regarding an offender’s status. However, at this point, any conclusion as to whether or not the
VINE system is beneficial to victims would be premature and unreliable. As more and more criminal justice agencies contract with VINE, it becomes even more crucial to determine in a scientific way whether
victims are actually satisfied with the system.
The Missouri DOC has been on-line with the VINE system for three full months, thus it is difficult to identify all of the ways in which the system will benefit the DOC. However, there are some benefits that have
become extremely obvious. Prior to the implementation of VINE the DOC had no way of producing any
statistics regarding the exact number of victims being notified. The only statistic that could be accurately
measured was the number of notification letters sent out. Now, however, victim services staff can identify precisely how many victims are active, how many are registered to receive notification, how many have
not registered, and of those, how many are victims of dangerous felons vs. non-dangerous felons. When a
victim receives a telephonic notification, staff can also tell the precise time when the notification was
received by the victim. Additionally, victim services staff has reported a substantial decrease in the number of phone calls received from victims.
It appears that VINE has the potential to be beneficial for crime victims and the Department. This will
either be confirmed or we will learn how to better improve our customer service and satisfaction of victims after analyzing the upcoming customer survey.
Victim Impact
151
152
Victim Impact
Chapter 6
Inmate Family Focus
153
154
The Family Foundation Program: Breaking the Cycle
of Criminality
California Department of Corrections
C.A. "Cal" Terhune, Director
The California Department of Corrections (CDC) formally opened its first Family Foundations Program
facility in June of 1999. The program is the Department’s first alternative sentencing program for substance abusing women who are pregnant or parenting a small child.
"What is extraordinary is that everyone wants to do something to reduce crime. This is a beginning," said
Sharrell Blakeley, CDC’s Assistant Director – Community Resources, whose division oversees this innovative, new program.
As custodian of the world’s largest population of female inmates, CDC operates five state prisons with a
combined inmate female population of more than 11,000. If national statistics bear out in California, 88%
of these women are mothers. Within CDC, some 30 female inmates become mothers every month, most
of whom have their children taken from them shortly after birth to be raised by a family member or in a
foster home.
The California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Secretary Robert Presley saw the problem clearly in
his 20 years in the State Legislature. As a major author of criminal justice and correctional legislation, he
sponsored the 1994 Pregnant and Parenting Women’s Alternative Sentencing Act that gave CDC the
authority to create the Family Foundations Program. The first site opened in June of 1999, a second
opened in February of 2000 and a third will open in July of 2001.
"The ultimate goal of the program is to reduce recidivism of the participants and to assist in the continued
bonding of mother and child," said Presley. "This alternative sentencing holds women accountable for
their criminal behavior while affording parent and child a chance to lead more healthy and productive
lives, as the mother completes her sentence."
Inmate Family Focus
155
The Family Foundation Program
Secretary Presley’s legislation became Penal Code Section 1174, which required CDC to establish residential programs where women with an established history of substance abuse, who are pregnant or parenting one or more children under six years of age may be sentenced by the court if they meet specific criteria that generally eliminates women with violence in their criminal past. Other criteria includes a sentence that does not exceed 36 months, a probation department report that confirms the woman’s participation is in the best interest of the child and a recommendation from the district attorney that the defendant
would benefit from participation in the program.
Criteria that mandates a non-violent history relates to the Family Foundation facilities’ lack of a secured
perimeter and the need for CDC to garner strong community support prior to property purchase and facility construction. Women in the program must not pose a risk to the safety of the public. Further, participating women must sign a voluntary placement agreement that delineates their obligations and responsibilities as a program participant. This level of commitment is required due to the very limited number of
program spaces available and to maintain an atmosphere conducive to learning and self-improvement.
Upon acceptance to the program, the female inmate is sentenced directly to the Family Foundations
Program from county jail or the community, rather than being processed through the Department’s reception center inside of a prison setting.
The primary method the program uses to prevent recidivism is the development of a strong, nurturing relationship between the mother and her child. "The female offender has the opportunity to bond with her
child and it is this bonding experience that serves as a buffer against future recidivism," said Blakeley.
"This gives the inmate the reason she needs to stay clean and sober. Our goal is to turn women off drugs
and on to their children."
Female inmates who successfully complete one year in the program, plus a minimum one-year of transitional/aftercare services under intensive parole supervision, are then discharged from parole. For those
women who do not successfully complete the program, they are transferred to State prison to serve their
original sentence with credit for time served, followed by the standard parole period of three years.
In establishing the Family Foundations Program, CDC sought to accomplish four substantial tasks. These
were to:
• Develop, maintain and strengthen the relationship between mother and child through structured parenting classes, supervised parent/child interactions and relapse/recovery services
• Decrease risk factors and provide assistance for medical, physical, emotional and behavioral problems
of children by providing a program which includes early intervention, therapeutic child care, personal
adjustment skills and mother/infant/child bonding components
• Prepare the female inmates for their transition into the community as productive, law-abiding citizens
• Reduce the number of mothers and pregnant women in prison and prevent the separation of infants at
birth, and reduce recidivism of female offenders
The reason for the commitment to and excitement about the Family Foundations Program is because of
the promise it holds in changing the lives of these inmate mothers. A study of parole data collected from
June 1997 through December 1998 demonstrated that female inmates who participated in special counseling and a residential program for inmate mothers were one-fifth less likely to return to prison as general population female inmates. "The establishment of this program is a major accomplishment," said
Blakeley. "It is the Department’s commitment to breaking the intergenerational cycle of criminality."
156
Inmate Family Focus
Cal Terhune
Currently, there are 20 women and 20 children housed at CDC’s Los Angeles County facility and six
women housed at the San Diego County facility, both of which have a capacity of 35 women and 40 children. A third facility is under construction in Fresno County. As Blakeley puts it, the women who voluntarily choose to be placed into this program are choosing a hard path – one that many other inmates would
shy away from. "Some women don’t want to work this hard and some don’t want to spend this much time
with their children," she said. "We want the woman who is ready to change her life."
Participants arise at 6 a.m., ready their children for school or child care, and begin a series of classes that
includes everything from substance abuse treatment, life-skills and parenting and vocational education. In
addition, they must clean the facility (including the windows), prepare meals and do all their own laundry.
Daily house meetings are a means of maintaining the smooth and orderly operations of daily living. This
exhausting day ends at 10 p.m. with lights out.
On their journey through this rigorous program, the inmates begin to confront their substance abuse problems, issues that have derailed their lives, such as incestuous or abusive relationships and co-dependency.
And slowly the role reversal – from the parent who has been the errant, angry child and the child who has
been the angry parent – begins to reverse. The parent begins to shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood
and the nurturing of the child. In turn, the child is allowed to stop nurturing the parent and become a child
again. Blakeley said she has witnessed the metamorphosis of many women who have come through the
program and the wonderful changes in their children.
Services provided to the female inmates as well as the children arise from Individual Treatment Plans
(ITP) developed by a program counselor and casework team, which describe treatment goals for each participant that must be addressed in order for that individual to become a productive, law-abiding member
of society. The uniqueness of these ITPs to the specific needs and issues of the individual are a key to
offering that person the best chance of achieving the goal of leaving the program and succeeding in society.
The ITPs address the full range of needs that the inmate possesses that stand in the way of a successful
return to law abiding citizenship. These include, but are not limited to the following areas:
• Substance abuse
• Physical and mental health
• Social services and custody issues
• Parenting skills
• Vocational and educational skills
The children of Family Foundation Program inmates receive the same level of attention through their ITPs,
including but not limited to the following:
• Immunizations
• Pediatric medical care
• Nutrition
• Psychological interventions
• Motor skill development
• Play therapies
Because recovery from substance abuse is a key component to successful completion of the Family
Foundations Program and the transition to re-entering the community, inmates who commit to this volun-
Inmate Family Focus
157
The Family Foundation Program
tary placement must undergo random drug testing. This is a necessary part of the program to achieve the
overriding goal of remaining drug and alcohol free and to maintain the safety of children in the program.
A positive drug test results in a female inmate’s removal from the program and transfer to State prison to
serve her original sentence. To date, no Family Foundations Program participant has tested positive for
drug abuse.
In the end, the goals of the program will also benefit the community to which the woman will return. In
each of the three communities where the Family Foundations Program exists, its placement there has been
embraced with open arms after considerable education and information sharing with the general public.
"If we want to help all communities in California begin to reduce crime, we have to start with women and
children," said Blakeley.
158
Inmate Family Focus
Closing the Gap Between Women and Children
Edward L. Cohn, Commissioner
The Indiana Women’s Prison (IWP) has the distinction of being the oldest maximum-security institution
located on its original site for females in the United States. The facility was established in 1869, and began
operating in October of 1873. It stands on fifteen acres, comprising a full city block in the center of an
urban neighborhood, 1.6 miles from Monument Circle in downtown Indianapolis.
The IWP manages a diverse population using a non-traditional approach to operations due to the complexity of the population. The population is comprised of offenders designated as maximum security, to
include death row, offenders with serious psychiatric diagnoses, offenders who are developmentally disabled, offenders with chronic illness or in need of geriatric or nursing home care, all juvenile females sentenced as adults as well as all pregnant females. Also located at this facility is the Indiana Women’s Intake
Unit which is the reception and diagnostic unit responsible for receiving, processing, evaluating and classifying all females entering the system prior to transporting them to the facility for which they qualify,
based on their designated security level. To effectively house, treat and program for such a diverse population the offenders are separated into living units called zones. A zone has been established for each of
these special populations. Each zone has a director and designated staff whose total focus is to design and
develop operational procedures and programs that meet the needs of the population assigned to the zone.
Approximately 75% of the offenders incarcerated at the IWP are mothers. Research indicates that one out
of every 50 children in the United States today has a parent in jail or in prison. Children with an incarcerated parent have a greater potential to engage in behaviors that are disruptive and anti-social and are
five times as likely to become incarcerated themselves. The abandonment issues children face as a result
of being separated from their mothers produce feelings of guilt and anger, resulting in poor adjustment in
the home and school.
Inmate Family Focus
159
Incarcerated mothers, separated from their children, experience additional emotional and adjustment problems related to the placement and care of their children. Compounding these problems is the guilt the
mother feels due to her inappropriate nurturing, parenting and problem solving skills she exhibited prior
to her incarceration. The key to the successful adjustment of an incarcerated female is the safe placement
of her child or children.
A comprehensive program designed for "Family Preservation" was developed at the Women’s Prison to
preserve the special bond that exists between a female offender and her children. As the children are the
other victims of a mother’s crime, this program’s focus is on the child’s health, safety, care and development. Presently, the program has the capability of encompassing children from the prenatal stage through
teenage years. Currently, the Family Preservation Program is divided into five components to include:
• Children’s Visitation Center
• Therapeutic Education and Support Groups
• Responsible Mother Healthy Baby Prenatal Program
• Family Enrichment Activities
• Outreach Program
Family Therapy is a sixth component that is due to start in September 2000.
The Social Service Department Director is administratively responsible for the program. A full-time
Family Preservation Coordinator supervises staff and daily operations of each component.
The Family Preservation Program began in February 1997 with the opening of the Children’s Visitation
Center. The unique and challenging aspect of this center is its location inside the compound of the maximum-security facility. Traditionally, around the country, children’s centers are located adjacent to the visiting room to avoid the necessity of entering the compound. The superintendent was successful in joining
custody and non-custody into one staff team that takes pride in this program's success. By collaborating
with Family Social Service Administration, the Department of Health, the YWCA, St. Vincent Hospital
and the Children’s Bureau, funding, staffing and volunteer support was acquired.
The superintendent’s commitment to the establishment of a safe, healthy environment was accomplished
by involving the offenders and holding them accountable for maintaining an environment where not only
are children safe, but one where children do not hear or see anything that would confuse or intimidate them
in any way.
Seeing children on a daily basis inside the compound has enhanced the healthiness of the environment by
providing a more natural setting for female offenders. Numerous offenders became actively involved in
converting a large, sunny room, into a warm child-friendly atmosphere. The drafting class designed the
layout of the room, children’s furniture, cabinets, rocking horses, a climbing apparatus and a large sandbox. All of the above items were built in the Building Trades Class. Offender volunteers are also used in
various aspects of the program. The room is filled with toys to ride and play with, including dolls, trains,
stuffed animals, videos, books and games. This center operates year around, and is open Wednesday
through Sunday. Visits are pre-scheduled so as not to overcrowd the area and lose the effectiveness of the
visit. The program encompasses newborns through age 14 and offender mothers and grandmothers are eligible to participate. Children are brought into the facility’s visiting room where they are met by their
mothers and are transported by the "Teddy Bear Trolley" across grounds to the center. The objective is to
encourage bonding and teach appropriate interaction. All offenders wishing to use the center must complete a 15-week Parent Education Program and demonstrate positive behavior in their daily living.
160
Inmate Family Focus
Edward L. Cohn
The Therapeutic Education and Support component offers a variety of therapeutic, educational and support groups directly related to the issues of parenting; infants, children and teenagers plus support groups
for mothers and grandmothers. A specifically designed parenting program for offenders with serious psychiatric problems or developmental disabilities is currently being administered.
The Responsible Mother Healthy Baby (Prenatal Program) component is a comprehensive program delivered by a full-time registered nurse (RN) family care coordinator working for the Social Services
Department. Access to the program begins at intake and continues through the birth of the baby. An extensive assessment is completed by the nurse to include planning for the placement and care of the child plus
wrap-around services to include inoculations, formula, diapers, clothes and a car seat. The family care
coordinator conducts weekly support groups, classes in prenatal and parenting education, newborn care
classes plus individual counseling sessions. Problems or concerns of the expectant mother are referred to
the medical doctor, administration or offender counselor or zone supervisor as necessary. Selecting a safe
and loving placement is the goal and once caregiver’s arrangements are finalized, temporary guardianship
papers are prepared in the facility law library. Recently this program was embellished by establishing a
process of arranging and allowing each offender to have a birthing coach in the labor and delivery room.
Once the child is born, the family care coordinator follows the progress of the child until the age of three.
Every effort is made to have the newborn brought to the facility and spend time in the Children’s Center
to commence the mother/child bonding process.
The Family Enrichment Activity component provides the means for offender mothers and their children to
spend extensive time participating in age-appropriate structured activity. The weeklong Summer Camp,
held in July, within the confines of the IWP grounds is always the highlight of mother/grandmother activities. Children and grandchildren, ages five-12 years arrive daily at 8:00 a.m. and leave each day at 3:00
p.m. Children who reside in the area may be brought daily by caregivers while children residing out of
town have the option of residential care for the week at the Children’s Bureau. This service is at no cost
to the caregiver and they can be comfortable knowing the child is in a safe, licensed environment and will
be transported daily to camp to be with his/her mother. The camp is a holistic, institutional endeavor. Staff
members in all departments volunteer, as do offenders who do not have children.
Camp begins daily with a flag ceremony that entails marching and singing with everyone waving an individual flag. Music, physical activity, crafts and special events comprise the day. Special events have
included live llamas, pony rides, a visit with Zoo animals, magicians and small animal petting of rabbits,
dogs and goats. Each year the sand volleyball court is dug up and becomes a man-made lake to float
wooden boats and canoes made in craft class. Needless to say, in 95-degree weather the boats share the
water with children who start out accidentally falling in to simply jumping in. The Family Living Class
prepares all the food that begins with breakfast. Lunch and a variety of daily snacks are served later in the
day. Each child, mother and staff member at camp receives a T-shirt with the camp logo to wear for the
week. Offenders in the vocational printing program do the logo and printing. Camp concludes with a closing ceremony and awards presentation. Each child receives a picture taken with their mother and the pictures are placed in frames made and decorated in crafts class to remind them of a special week that will
remain a memory forever.
The Outreach Program component provides a mechanism for child-related problems identified during a
visit. The full-time outreach coordinator connects community resources to caregivers to help alleviate the
identified issues. Difficulties transporting children for visits are assessed and either gas vouchers are pro-
Inmate Family Focus
161
vided or arrangements are made through church volunteers for transport. School social workers are also
connected with offender mothers to ensure their involvement in the educational process. Home visits are
made by the outreach coordinator when possible and offender mothers are kept informed of issues and corrective measures taken.
162
Inmate Family Focus
The Children’s Initiatives
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Richard L. Stalder, Secretary
Children are not born criminals, but whatever happens that increases the likelihood of criminal behavior
begins early. Very early. Current brain development research suggests that the prenatal period through
age three is developmentally the most significant, and that environmental factors influence development
almost as much as genetics do. When abuse and neglect are part of that environment, the likelihood of
eventual arrest and future violent behavior increases significantly. Alternately, when parenting education
and access to social services begin prior to a child’s birth and continue until he or she reaches school age,
delinquent behavior is reduced dramatically.
Logic and research findings like the above converge toward the same conclusion: the most effective way
to influence criminal behavior is to lessen its likelihood at the front end, in early childhood. At first glance
that may not seem to be a viable option in a correctional setting. The Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections decided, however, that primary crime prevention is an appropriate part of its mission and took steps to identify and implement programs that can have a positive effect, not only on offenders but also on their children, born and unborn. In December 1997 the agency launched "The Children’s
Initiatives," an effort consisting of three parts: Steps to Success, parenting skills training and CHARACTER COUNTS!
Steps to Success
Steps to Success is advocated nationally by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). It promulgates research
findings like those reported above regarding the developmental impact of environmental influences and
early childhood experiences, and in doing so, seeks to persuade policy makers of the importance of prenatal and early childhood programs. It also seeks to teach pregnant women about the importance of prenatal care for themselves and their unborn children and to link the women to existing social services and
Inmate Family Focus
163
community agencies for well-child care and immunizations. Access to such services helps children develop healthy bodies, agile minds and the ability to be self-sufficient.
Although the Department has minimal contact with pregnant women, literature about prenatal care and
early childhood development is placed in adult and juvenile probation and parole offices and institution
visiting rooms. Because the agency has extensive contact with persons who are now, or will be, parents,
the research findings underlying Steps to Success have become the foundation for parenting skills training
and CHARACTER COUNTS!
Parenting Skills
The Department’s commitment to early childhood intervention led us to implement a broad, 30-hour parenting skills training curriculum. It is taught in all adult and juvenile institutions and participation is
mandatory for juvenile offenders over age 14 and adult inmates within a year of release. A staff person in
each facility coordinates the program. At some institutions inmate facilitators lead the classes. Several
institutions supplement program offerings by enlisting community volunteers. Participation in parenting
skills training is also being added as a condition of release for some inmates, and parenting classes are
being taught by other agencies in the Shreveport and the New Orleans West probation and parole district
offices.
An executive staff member at headquarters coordinates interactions among the adult and juvenile institutions and prepares a monthly summary of activities, to which information helpful to program leaders is
appended. Recent issues have included excerpts from a Corrections Alert article about the value of programs that strengthen inmates’ family ties and a summary of ways children learn to read and parents can
encourage the habit. The combination of local control and central coordination encourages creativity and
supports an exchange of ideas.
Classes combine speakers, tapes and discussions linking classroom material and personal experience.
Beyond that, topics and approaches vary:
• The coordinator at Avoyelles Correctional Center employs the device used in many schools to demonstrate the demanding nature of caring for an infant: requiring program participants to carry and shelter a
"baby" (in this instance, a boiled egg)
• Offenders at Swanson Correctional Center for Youth recently explored "bonding with your baby," and
talked about their own good and bad experiences as a way of measuring the accuracy of what they heard
in class
• Inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary participate in a ten-session series that includes the responsibilities attendant to fathering a child, anger management, how children learn, appropriate discipline for young
children, the importance of honesty and gentleness and praising and encouraging kids
• Inmate facilitators at David Wade Correctional Center made a presentation to inmate organizations about
child-proofing a house
• At Winn Correctional Center, the possibility of deterring juvenile crime with good parenting skills was
the focus of recent classes.
• At Jetson Correctional Center for Youth (JCCY), offenders who are already parents and female offenders who are pregnant participate in special additional classes. Recently, they provided care for a baby doll
and kept a journal to document feeding and changing schedules. JCCY employees also receive mandatory parenting skills training as a way to enhance their abilities as caretakers of children.
164
Inmate Family Focus
Richard L. Stalder
The visiting areas at Work Training Facility North, Dixon Correctional Institute and Winn Correctional
Center offer a "Children’s Reading Corner." While the resource serves to amuse young children who grow
bored sitting in the visiting room, it simultaneously supports the program’s emphasis on the importance of
reading with and to children and enables inmates to practice new insights about interacting with children.
Realizing that the role of adjudicated juveniles as parents is overlooked during the Christmas season,
employees at the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth sponsor a party for the juvenile parents and their
children. For years, the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women has sponsored a Program for Caring
Parents. Children ten years old and younger receive extended visiting hours (up to eight hours on a
Saturday or Sunday) with their mothers or grandmothers. All such programming "new or old" is directed
toward helping inmates understand how important it is for children to have responsible parents and offers
inmates the opportunity to practice their skills, sometimes face-to-face with their own children.
CHARACTER COUNTS!
CHARACTER COUNTS! is a national program formulated by a nonpolitical, nonsectarian alliance of
more than 200 nonprofit organizations. Its goal is to strengthen the character of America’s young people
by encouraging them to adopt a consistent set of ethical values. Alliance members agreed upon six core
values, referred to as the "Six Pillars of Character" (Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness,
Caring, and Citizenship) and developed a core curriculum. The resulting CHARACTER COUNTS!
Coalition offers training to groups and agencies wishing to implement the program.
The Department’s intent in introducing CHARACTER COUNTS! is captured in the words of an institutional coordinator: "We all want our children to have good values and strong character. But good character does not just happen. It is up to each of us to lay a solid foundation for character development by teaching children right from wrong. And, most importantly, by acting as positive role models."
Introduction of CHARACTER COUNTS! into the Department’s programming began and continues as a
collaborative effort with the Cooperative Extension Service of the Louisiana State University. Employees
throughout the Department have been trained to lead CHARACTER COUNTS! sessions and to train new
users. CHARACTER COUNTS! training and activities are now included in all adult and juvenile institutions and the Division of Youth Services (DYS) field offices. Periodically, classes are offered to staff.
DYS employees have taken the program into contract and other community-based youth programs.
Employees have also introduced the program into their own area schools, church groups and community
organizations. The "Six pillars" and related do-s and don’t-s appear in a bound calendar of events for the
Second Baptist Church of Wilson. One active proponent led a session at the Annual Louisiana Youth
Conference, where school and community groups of teenagers and adult leaders deal with the issues of
traffic safety, prevention of underage drinking and the use of other drugs and related health and safety concerns. Others have presented CHARACTER COUNTS! at the annual practitioners’ conference on FINS
(families in need of services) and at Southern University’s summer basketball camp for youth. One
employee found the local Council on Aging as responsive to her presentation as local youth groups were.
At Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, where CHARACTER COUNTS! is woven into educational
programming, one reading class designed and wrote safety tips for Halloween for a free-world class of first
graders. The older students sought to demonstrate and teach Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and
Citizenship.
Inmate Family Focus
165
Some institutions link CHARACTER COUNTS activities and parenting skills training; others handle the
two programs separately but mingle material. Either way, CHARACTER COUNTS has begun to permeate the Department’s thinking and its vocabulary. It is becoming the desired standard for staff who should
model good character for inmates, and for staff and inmates who must demonstrate character values to
their own and others’ children.
Summary
Any effective effort to reduce growth in the adult prison population will have to include effective intervention with juvenile and adult offenders already in the system and a reduction in the numbers who enter.
By teaching character values, early childhood development and parenting skills, and by helping to link
offenders and appropriate services, correctional agencies can foster development of healthy, nourished and
nurtured children who will be less likely to be involved in criminal activity as they mature.
166
Inmate Family Focus
Parenting Programs
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
Harold W. Clarke, Director
Introduction
The Parenting Program at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women (NCCW) was initiated in 1974
when the inmate population was fewer than 50 women. Visionary administration recognized the need for
women to stay connected with the children they would be caring for when they were released. An
overnight program developed because of the long distances that children had to come in order to see their
mother. The Mother Offspring Life Development Program was the first of it’s kind in the country. The
program evolved as the inmate population grew, and in 1994 the addition of an on-grounds nursery was a
natural expansion to the existing program. Today, with a population of about 200 women, approximately
65% participate in having child visits, taking parenting and child development classes, or caring for their
own baby in the Nursery Program.
The program has been studied by state judges and included in parole and rehabilitation plans for many of
the inmate mothers sentenced here. The program instructors work closely with the Department of Health
and Human Services to complete the mother’s plan for reunification with her children.
Nebraska’s programs strive to educate a high-risk population in the art of loving and parenting their children, as well as in the importance of taking care of themselves. Over the years the inmates have taken
ownership of the programs, conduct themselves accordingly, and have been a major part in the success.
Funding
A federal grant was awarded in 1974, and provided an 853-square foot building used as an activity area,
classroom and office. The grant included furniture, playground equipment, educational materials, stove,
Inmate Family Focus
167
Parenting Programs
refrigerator and a dishwasher. The building is situated on the outer edge of the main courtyard, enabling
mothers and children to play in an area not authorized for general population. A park-like atmosphere surrounds the parenting building. A small storage shed houses bicycles, tricycles, sleds and other play equipment.
In 1994 the National Institute of Corrections awarded NCCW a grant to start the Nursery Program. This
program was modeled after the program at the Bedford Hills Correctional Institution for Women, in
Bedford Hills, New York. This grant provided for consulting services, a director and a superintendent.
Grant money was used to complete minimal renovation on the second floor of the East Hall Housing Unit.
This gave the new nursery 2,688 square feet of space. Overnight child visits also take place in this area.
The money also provided furniture and equipment such as cribs, infant seats, etc., clothing and educational
materials.
Nursery babies are covered under Medicaid for all of their medical needs. After a cost of salaries, building maintenance, and formula, the programs run almost exclusively on donated funds.
Community Support
The Parenting Program has enjoyed an abundance of community involvement. Through national attention
in outlets such as People Magazine, Life Magazine, and USA Today, groups from all over the state request
the opportunity to see the programs and help with program needs. A local bank donated a refrigerator, dishwasher and microwave for the Nursery Program. All of the Parenting Program’s toys, books, and games
either have been purchased with donated funds or donated directly to the center. These donations of money
and other items arrive regularly from church groups, teacher associations, businesses and others in the
community.
York General Hospital provides a valuable resource for the Parenting Program. In addition to working
closely with the parenting coordinator on policy development, the hospital has a representative on the
Community Involvement Council. Other council members include area business people, teachers, clergy
and other interested citizens.
Inmate Eligibility
All new inmates receive information on the Parenting Program during initial orientation in the Diagnostic
and Evaluation Unit. Many of these inmate mothers will be recommended for classes as part of their personalized plan.
Eligibility for on-grounds, overnight visits begins when the inmate has been in general population for a
period of 30 days, and has shown a satisfactory adjustment. A test covering all of the rules and regulations
for on-grounds visits must be passed with at least an 80% score. An inmate with a pending misconduct
report, or completing sanctions for a misconduct report is not eligible for an on-grounds visit, and any
scheduled visit will be canceled.
On-grounds visits must be scheduled at least 15 days in advance. The inmate mother signs a
contract agreeing to all of the rules and must pay in advance for the child’s meals and any other items
before the visit. This contract is completed each time a visit is scheduled. The inmate’s work supervisor,
case manager, lieutenant and the parenting program coordinator also sign it. Permission, verification of
168
Inmate Family Focus
Harold W. Clarke
transportation and a medical treatment permission form must be received from the child’s legal guardian
or Health and Human Services case worker before the child is allowed on grounds for any overnight or
day visit.
Children ages one through eight may come for overnight visits, and newborns through 16 year olds may
schedule a day visit. All visits must be scheduled with the parenting program coordinator. The inmate
mother may have up to five overnight visits per month with a single child, or five-day visits with up to
four children.
Inmates arriving at the NCCW pregnant may apply to participate in the Nursery Program. The application will be reviewed by the Nursery Committee, which consists of the nursery instructor, parenting program coordinator, medical director, unit management administrator, education coordinator, security major,
mental health and the assistant warden. Length of sentence, crime committed and the inmate’s general programming needs are considered.
The inmate mother must be able to complete her sentence and leave with her baby by the time the baby
has reached 18 months. She will live on the non-smoking Nursery Unit, and attend all the Parenting
Program classes, beginning with pre-natal courses. The nursery instructor or parenting program coordinator will go to the hospital with the inmate mother and serve as her delivery coach when she begins her
labor.
After the delivery of her baby, she will return to the center, and live on the Nursery Unit with her child.
She will continue to take classes, and may have a part-time job when she is released from medical. Inmate
aides are screened, hired and trained to care for the babies when their mothers are working or going to
class.
The goal is to give nursery mothers the information and opportunity to succeed in caring for their babies.
Under the supervision of the nursery instructor, and the parenting program coordinator, many of the new
mothers, as well as mothers with many children, begin to feel a confidence in themselves. Babies in this
program have been sociable and developmentally on target.
Education
The position of parenting program coordinator and nursery instructor are held by certified teachers. The
positions’ responsibilities include making the numerous classes available to inmates on a rotating basis,
teaching classes and coordinating the children’s visits on grounds. The following classes are available to
all inmates at NCCW and are required for Parenting Program participants:
Parenting I- The Active Parenting Program by Dr. Michael Popkins is used for this eight- to ten-session
course. This video-based program discusses instilling responsibility and cooperation in children as well as
building self-esteem and developing communication skills. This course focuses on the parenting of twoto 12-year olds.
Parenting II - Active Parenting for Teens is built on the foundations of the Parenting I course. The focus
is on parenting adolescents. A unit on sex and drugs has been added to the curriculum. In addition to the
Active Parenting Program, parts of the Parenting From A Distance are used. These lessons are incorporated into the course where most appropriate for incarcerated parents.
Inmate Family Focus
169
Parenting Programs
Active Parenting - 1,2,3,4, Active Parenting is also based on the original foundations of the program, with
special emphasis on the toddler stage of development.
Understanding Relationships - Discussion and practice of communication skills may be used for improving all relationships, including partner, parents and children. Videos by Leo Buscaglia and John Bradshaw,
two modern experts on relationships, are integral parts of this course.
Personal Growth & Development - Students examine their personal goals and values with respect to all
areas of their lives. Students are given ways to build self-esteem, solve problems, manage stress and take
care of themselves.
Money Management - Basic skills in budgeting, using checking accounts, setting financial goals and keeping household records are taught and practiced.
Human Sexuality and How to Talk With Your Child About Sex - After reviewing the facts about human
sexuality and development, inmate discussions focus on ways to discuss sexuality at different stages of
childhood and adolescence. Information about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases are included in this curriculum.
Social and Emotional Growth & Development - This course studies the stages of personality, communication and social skills development. Outside influences, parenting skills and building self-esteem are
examined. Mothers learn what to expect from their children at these various stages.
Physical Growth & Development - All of the aspects examined in Social & Emotional Growth are studied with emphasis on the child’s developing physical capabilities.
CPR and First Aid - Available to all inmates, CPR and First Aid is required of participants in the Parenting
Programs. Students must complete both the written and practical exams in adult, infant and child CPR, rescue breathing and first aid procedures. Certification is given through the American Red Cross.
Creating A Healthy Child - This course provides information about children’s health needs prior to conception and birth. Each trimester of pregnancy is addressed. Methods for achieving good nutrition and
health are emphasized. The course also explains what information tests and examinations at the doctor
reveal. The expectant mother is introduced to birthing procedures, the Lamaze Method of Childbirth and
breast feeding.
Infant Growth & Development - Pregnant mothers study the physical and emotional development of
babies in their first year of life. Nutrition, daily care, clothing, self-esteem and parenting are topics covered.
The 10 Greatest Gifts I Give My Children - Parenting strategies that help families create their own unique
family vision and a workable, proactive plan to nurture and fulfill that vision are provided from the book
by Steven Vannoy.
Alternatives to Spanking – A Nurturing Program - Alternatives to physical discipline, designed for newborns to teens are taught and discussed.
Various workshops, speakers and seminars on parenting and women’s issues are held throughout the year,
170
Inmate Family Focus
Harold W. Clarke
and are available to all inmates.
Conclusion
The Nebraska Parenting Program has been examined by several other states as a model visiting and onsite nursery program. A supportive administrative staff has played a major part in the success of this program.
Inmate mothers at the Center have a vested interest in maintaining this program. Not only does the program allow their children to visit in a meaningful way, but classes and participation also provide opportunities for learning. Having children on grounds provides incentive for good inmate behavior: the women
are careful about their language and conversation in the presence of children and misconduct can result in
visits being canceled. Inmates report that having the children and the babies on grounds allows them the
feeling of being "normal" while in prison, as well as an incentive to get back to that "normal" life.
Inmate Family Focus
171
172
Inmate Family Focus
Children of Incarcerated Parents Project
Dave Cook, Director
What if …
… children of incarcerated parents were given tools to cope with the shame, anxiety and anger of having
a parent sentenced to the jail or prison?
… incarceration of a parent meant not the bitter end of a child's family life, but rather, the beginning of
new opportunities for parent and child to grow?
… early childhood contact between children of incarcerated parents and criminal justice agencies built
trust and cooperation not animosity and criminal thinking?
… five to ten years from now, the children of incarcerated parents began to appear not on the juvenile court
docket but on honor rolls and dean's lists?
… and 20 years from now, what if some of Oregon's scarce social resources, targeted for funding prison
construction and operation, could be redirected to benefit all youth as education, health care dollars or savings to families?
Current Reality
The sad truth is that children of incarcerated parents are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are
their peers (Women's Prison Association & Home, Inc., 1995). An estimated 1.5 million minor children in
the United States have a parent who is incarcerated and many thousands more have parents who have been
in prison at some time during their lives (Seymour, 1999). The literature indicates that these children "do
the time" and learn the attitudes right along with their parents.
These children may also have unique therapeutic needs resulting from the criminal behaviors modeled by
their parent, the trauma of parent-child separation or the significant stigma associated with incarceration
Inmate Family Focus
173
of a parent (Seymour, 1999).
Since there is no system in place to identify them, little is known about these children — who are their
caretakers? what are their needs? how traumatic is it for them to have a parent in prison? Unfortunately,
there is no systematic "safety net" in place in Oregon to provide help for these children. The Oregon
Department of Corrections decided to explore answers to these and many other questions about the children of incarcerated parents.
In February 2000, the Department created the Children of Incarcerated Parents Project to determine how
to improve outcomes for these children. The first priority is to prevent them from perpetuating the intergenerational cycle of criminality. Initially a workgroup was formed to make recommendations. Its work
will be reviewed by a policy group of legislators, agency administrators, community interest groups and
other stakeholders.
The workgroup is composed of committed representatives from over 15 organizations including public
safety, education, public health, child welfare, ecumenical ministries and inmate family support groups.
Representatives from all of these organizations had considerable anecdotal evidence of intergenerational
criminality. No specific program has been identified anywhere within state government that specifically
targeted these children for intervention and treatment.
With the adoption of the mission statement—"To promote the health and well-being of the children of
incarcerated parents"—the Children's Project began. To navigate the obstacles often associated with such
a global venture, the workgroup developed objectives and guiding principles.
Objectives
• To understand the diverse needs specific to children of incarcerated parents
• To reduce the likelihood that these children will enter the criminal justice system
• To define each stakeholder's role in this effort and stakeholder resources necessary to effect positive
change
• To develop and recommend any changes in laws, policies, procedures and operational practices necessary to effect this positive change
Guiding Principles
• Oregon's children are everyone's responsibility
• Targeted effective programs that meet the diverse needs of children of incarcerated parents will reduce
the likelihood that they will enter the criminal justice system
• Collaboration with interested groups will develop effective collaborative strategies to break the intergenerational cycle of criminality
• Continuous evaluation and shared use of information will lead to maximum program effectiveness
The Children's Project's first task was to assess the size of the undertaking and gather some baseline information. It began by looking for data to identify whom, specifically, these affected children are and what
similar programs and practices are in place in other Oregon agencies, jurisdictions and states.
Little information is currently being captured in Oregon that could provide clear data on children of incar-
174
Inmate Family Focus
Dave Cook
cerated parents. To establish a baseline and obtain specific data necessary to do prudent analysis of the
issue, the Department conducted a statewide survey of 512 female inmates and a random sample of 2,500
male inmates. Preliminary results indicate that:
• Approximately 67% of the women have children under the age of 18
• Approximately 59% of the men have children under the age of 18
• 48% of the women expect to have legal custody of their children after release from prison
• 24% of the men expect to have legal custody of their children after release from prison
• 53% of the women plan to live with their children after release
• 44% of the men plan to live with their children after release
Despite this expectation, 52% of the women and 68% of the men who plan to live with their children upon
release had not had a visit from their children in the three months prior to the survey. The literature indicates that the single greatest indicator of successful reunification of parents and children after incarceration is visitation (Women's Prison Association Home, Inc., 1995).
When asked about other family members who have been convicted of a crime, more women identified a
spouse or partner while more men identified a sibling:
• 42% of the women’s spouses or partners had been convicted
• 30% of the men’s siblings had been convicted
• 8% of the women had a child(ren) who had been convicted
• 5% of the men had a child(ren) who had been convicted
• 18% of women had a parent(s) or stepparent who had been convicted
• 18% of men had a parent(s) or stepparent who had been convicted
Both mothers and fathers identified emotional, financial and living arrangement problems as the greatest
struggles their children were experiencing.
The Children's Project's initial focus is on children whose mothers are incarcerated. Several factors support this decision, including:
• The opening of a new women's prison in 2002 offers an opportunity to develop appropriate family/parenting programs and to integrate them properly into the operational culture of the facility. Currently
women are housed in four facilities statewide; almost all will be housed in the new prison when completed.
• Females housed in a single institution offer a more concentrated and manageable population in which to
initiate a pilot project.
• The survey suggests that more mothers than fathers will have legal custody of their children after release
from prison.
The Department recognized early on that to truly have a positive impact on children's lives, more than
good programs in prisons are needed. A system based on the needs of the children, both in the community and when visiting in prison, is necessary. Because of tight time constraints, the Children's Project workgroup decided to divide the focus and approach the issue from two different perspectives – community
programs and institution programs.
Two subcommittees were formed: one subcommittee is developing a community oriented, system-wide
approach; the other is developing specific programs for the new women's prison. Both subcommittees
report bimonthly to the Children's Project Workgroup to share their assumptions, strategies and progress.
Inmate Family Focus
175
Each of the subcommittees has members from a variety of organizations and agencies who use their own
expertise to design collaborative solutions.
The Community Subcommittee is examining three related tasks:
• Identification of children and assessing their needs
• Resources, services/referral and linkage
• Research and evaluation (both program and system)
The Institution Programs Subcommittee will spotlight:
• Parent/family programs
• Research and evaluation
The Institutions Subcommittee is reviewing all aspects of family interaction while the parent is incarcerated. Current rehabilitation and education programs and rules on visiting, telephone use and mail will be
examined to determine where improvements can be made.
In addition to a close study of data and practices in Oregon, best practices in other states are being evaluated for effectiveness and suitability for use within Oregon's correctional environment. Several corrections
departments nationwide have adopted some child-friendly programs including birthing facilities and private rooms for postpartum mothers. As the Children's Project matures, relationships with grantors and
business partners are being defined.
Time is of the Essence
Already there have been positive outcomes; each organization involved has a deeper appreciation of the
complexity of delivering services to this population. Each organization has had a moment of discovery that
this high-risk population may have been slipping through the 'safety net.'
Due to the new prison construction timeline, there is a need to expedite the work done by the institutions
subcommittee. The target date for developing the outline for programs for the new women's prison and
intake center is early June 2000.
As its inmate population continues to steadily increase, the Oregon Department of Corrections is committed to doing more to prevent the risk of future criminal behavior by focusing on children of inmates and
their needs. The effective retooling of this subset of the social services system is complex work that will
take considerable time and effort. Traditionally, the Department and the child welfare system have not had
the opportunity to work together. The new collaborative interest in the children of incarcerated parents has
tapped a wealth of thoughts, energy and enthusiasm.
With an interest in children as a common thread, the Children's Project has already created partnering
opportunities among organizations with singular missions in hopes that the best criminal justice may be in
early prevention and socialization.
176
Inmate Family Focus
Chapter 7
Community and
Transitional Services
177
178
Community Enforcement Partnership Program
Connecticut Department of Correction
John J. Armstrong, Commissioner
The Community Enforcement Partnership Program of the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC)
was implemented in February 1999. Designed to decrease the number of escapes, recidivism and program
violations, the Partnership Program works closely with local police departments to ensure that offenders
serving the remainder of their time in the community consistently adhere to the conditions of their release.
For a number of years community-based offender supervision was limited in its scope simply because it
had been functioning as an entity unto itself. The partnership promotes the idea of interagency collaboration and communication, resulting in enhanced monitoring, improved effectiveness and efficient delivery
of services. For programming purposes, Connecticut has been divided into two districts, the Northern district comprising the Hartford and Norwich offices and the Southern district comprising the New Haven,
Bridgeport and Waterbury offices. Teams of counselor supervisors and captains supervise each district.
Correctional lieutenants and correctional sergeants supervise the shifts within each office. Correctional
officers first class are responsible for monitoring the offenders and correctional counselors are involved
with residential program placement, case management, and referrals to other community based programs.
In the past, Community enforcement only operated between the hours of 8:00am and 4:30pm, leaving a
large gap in supervision during which some offenders returned to criminal behavior. The partnership program has expanded its coverage to seven days per week, from 8:30am until 2:00am, a substantial increase
that will afford community enforcement the opportunity to verify that the offender is fulfilling the conditions of release during critical supervision timeframes.
The Community Enforcement Partnership Program is unique in part because of the formal agreement the
DOC has established with local police departments. For decades, most law enforcement agencies operated within their own archetype, resulting in duplication of services and inefficient use of both time and
resources. In the partnership, each agency has pledged to keep its lines of communication open and to
179
Community Enforcement Partnership Program
work in collaboration towards their mutual goals. In addition, the partnership paradigm established formal relationships with a number of community-based programs to promote continuity of care, providing
offenders with additional resources designed to facilitate smoother reintegration into the community. Such
programs include outpatient substance abuse treatment programs, employment services and mental health
treatment. The expanded hours of operation are also distinctive to the partnership, demonstrating the
department’s belief in a holistic approach to monitoring its offenders.
The Community Enforcement Partnership Program addresses several critical issues within corrections.
What was once mostly unstructured time for offenders is now filled with employment, programming and
counseling through the partnership program, resulting in increased accountability. The expanded hours of
operation not only accommodate partnership staff, but also the offenders, providing them with additional
timeframes in which they can report to their appropriate monitors. In addition, as a result of Community
Enforcement’s fugitive initiative, working with Social Security and various other state and federal agencies, the number of escapes has decreased and the number of public safety remands have increased.
Increased community supervision has resulted in a decrease in the number of program violations, which
in turn relieves the burden of crowding within the state’s correctional institutions.
Visiting offenders at their places of employment and at their homes also demonstrates that the DOC
embraces the holistic approach of the partnership. Furthermore, improved communication and formalized
agreements with other law enforcement agencies has resulted in improvements in the overall efficiency of
each agency. Work is no longer duplicated but shared between agencies, along with access to each law
enforcement agency’s computer information systems. This provides each organization with the most comprehensive information on each offender.
While the partnership program is still in its infancy, several significant achievements should be noted.
First is an improvement in staff morale. The addition of new staff members to the partnership has relieved
some of the workload that a small number of staff was previously required to absorb. The philosophy of
the partnership has altered the focus of Community Enforcement from high caseloads and voluminous
paperwork to reintegration and productivity of the offender. Putting the original theory behind managing
offenders in the community into practice demonstrates to staff the DOC’s commitment to successful reintegration and reducing recidivism.
Another significant success the partnership program has realized is improved relations between corrections
and local police departments. No longer are these agencies working alone with limited resources.
Merging community corrections and local law enforcement organizations led to collaboration on a number of levels, ranging from investigations and apprehensions to coordination of joint training modules. In
addition both agencies are invested in the success of the program, and thus the offender.
Furthermore, a larger number of offenders being supervised in the community are successfully completing their sentences in the community. In the past, staff shortages and high caseloads led to offenders violating the program through the use of drugs, committing another crime or failing to report to their
Community Enforcement Officer. The implementation of the Partnership Program has begun to restore
the integrity of community supervision. Offenders are being held accountable for their actions, instilling
in many a sense of responsibility and accomplishment. Offenders also profit the most from the partnership. Continuity of care is emphasized, allowing a smoother transition from the institution with moderate
supervision by the DOC and the police department in their area. Required employment and additional
programming further improves the chance for a successful transition.
180
John J. Armstrong
The families of the offender also benefit from the program. Embracing a unified philosophy, staff strive
to involve the family at the beginning of the transition, encouraging input throughout the process. As the
offender continues to work on behavior and other issues, change begins to take place. They begin taking
responsibility for their actions. Children of the offender also benefit from the program as the offender
begins to take an active role in their upbringing.
Placing non-violent offenders in structured community supervision to serve the remainder of their time
contributes to the improvement of the quality of life in the community. It gives offenders the opportunity
to give back some of what they have taken from the community and to become productive members of
society. Some communities even utilize reformed offenders to educate their constituents concerning safety and personal protection and to speak to troubled youth within the community as a potential deterrent.
The partnership evolved from the success of a similar program known as "One Voice." This program also
emphasized better communication through the coordination of law enforcement efforts. Thus, its premise
would be easily replicable, provided that interagency cooperation exists. Lack of communication, particularly among the administrations of each agency could produce disastrous results. The administrations and
members of the line staff of each agency need to continually apprise each other of progress made.
Furthermore, it is imperative that the administrations of each agency coordinate the training of their staff
to ensure success.
The success of the program implementation is contingent upon communication and community agency
collaborative involvement. Agency missions must be in concert with, and match the focus of, the partnership. The program serves the needs of the agency, the community and the offender. It is an investment
in success. Willingness to experiment and be open to numerous ideas and approaches expands a partnership’s possibilities of success. It is expected that, over time, the community itself will become involved
in the classification of offenders, including the modifications of the provisions of release, or return to custody.
Although sections of the program, for example the fugitive initiative, could be replicated individually, it
is recommended that should the partnership philosophy be replicated, it be done in its totality.
Reorganization of Community Enforcement into the Partnership Program has been one of the department’s
most promising initiatives. Altering the focus of community-based programming has created new energy
and enthusiasm amongst the community, the staff and the offenders.
181
182
Violation of Probation Centers and
The “Broken Windows” Theory
Delaware Department of Correction
Stan Taylor, Commissioner
The Delaware Department of Correction is attempting to apply the "Broken Windows Theory" to probation and parole. We have embarked on a new program to apply predictable and quick sanctions to violations of the conditions of supervision for the approximately 20,000 probationers currently under supervision in Delaware. This program gives probation officers the authority and encourages them to implement
sanctions whenever violations occur. At the core of this program is the theory that every violation, regardless of how minor, must be met with a consequence. The Violation of Probation Centers are a key component in this project.
For the past five years the emphasis has been on creating accountability for the conditions of supervision
and promoting public safety through partnerships with police agencies. In Delaware, Operation Safe
Streets teams probation officers with police officers. Delaware is the only state to operate a program such
as this statewide. We have partnered with Delaware State Police and two local jurisdictions, the City of
Wilmington and the City of Dover. These efforts have resulted in an increase in the percentage of offenders abiding by terms of supervision (percentage of offenders present for curfew checks has increased);
however, it has also resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of detected violations, especially technical violations.
In 1998 and 1999 the prison population was expanding at a rate of 10% per year with most of the growth
being probation and parole violations. Sixty percent of the violations were technical. This put significant
strain on the state’s jail and prison operations. The solution that has been implemented is to build into the
system an intermediate step between probation and incarceration. We call these facilities Violation of
Probation Centers (VOP). The first such facility was built toward the southern end of the state in Sussex
County, Delaware. It was completed in August of 1999, and currently holds approximately 200 inmates.
The second facility is under construction in the central region. It is expected to open in the fall of 2000.
183
Violation of Probation Centers and The “Broken Windows” Theory
A third, northern unit is on the drawing board.
What the Violation of Probation Centers offer is a short-term intervention for technical probation violators
as an alternative to returning to a period of incarceration, thus freeing up the more expensive, secure beds
for the violent offender. The purpose of VOP centers is to "get the offenders attention" and to return him
or her quickly to the community. Each facility has 250 beds designed for technical violators. The center
provides a stark, highly regimented, boot camp like environment with a heavy emphasis on offenders performing manual labor for government and non profit organizations through supervised community service
crews. Substance abuse and cognitive behavioral groups are conducted in the evenings. The security level
is four, the same as a halfway house or an electronic monitoring program.
An offender usually ends up in the VOP center after being arrested by probation officers using an administrative warrant for technical violations of the conditions of supervision. Usually within one working day,
the offender is placed on a special VOP court calendar reserved for Operation Safe Streets. The intent is
to transfer the offender as quickly as possible to the VOP Center. First-time offenders serve up to seven
days; second time offenders up to 14 days; and repeat offenders can serve up to 30 days. There is no limit
to the number of times an offender can be sent to the VOP center.
Before designing the building, the architect - Tetra Tech Inc. - conducted lengthy planning sessions with
department personnel to understand the purpose, mission and activities of the centers. This planning group
consisted of a broad range of disciplines within the Department of Corrections, including community staff,
institutional experts and maintenance personnel. This effort produced a single-floor building with three
housing clusters equipped with three meeting areas, a staging area for the work crews, administrative
offices, a multi-purpose dining area and recreation areas.
Two 100-bed housing clusters serve the general population while a 50-bed cluster serves females or special needs population. The clusters consist of 24- or 26-bed units. Located within the housing clusters are
multi-purpose rooms which can accommodate up to 36 individuals for treatment services, an interview
room and a meeting room for 12 individuals. Each housing unit is self-contained to limit the movement
of the offenders and reduce the number of staff necessary for supervision. This design allows for full flexibility in being able to handle three distinct meeting or treatment services after the workday. Other than
meals, the majority of offender activities will occur within the housing units - or on community work
details.
Typical work projects include mowing lawns, painting, highway crews, general maintenance and other
physical labors that benefit local communities. The size of the housing units is designed to allow offenders to be housed and work together. This reduces the need for additional staff. Since the VOP center is
viewed in the same security light as a Level Four facility, the staffing conforms to the same standards.
Forty-four staff are assigned to the center full time, consisting of correctional officers, probation/parole
officers and administrative staff.
VOP centers are more economical than traditional facilities partly by design and partly by eliminating
frills. For example, there is no commissary - and no need for a commissary officer. All essential hygiene
products and clothing are provided. Inmates are not permitted to purchase or possess clothing or products
not supplied by the Department. Since there is no commissary, inmates are not allowed to possess or
receive money, so there is no need for inmate accounts. The length of stay is generally short, so visits are
greatly curtailed. The inmates are supplied with the basic constitutional necessities, and nothing more.
184
Stan Taylor
The VOP philosophy is similar to that of boot camps. The days are highly regimented, the rules are strict
and discipline is enforced without exception. The serving of meals is a good example. Inmates move from
housing unit to chow hall by walking a line of colored tiles. They wait their turn in the doorway, then enter
in groups of five. They take the meal provided and move in line, to the next available table. They sit when
they are told to do so. They are not to speak without permission. They are given a specific amount of time
to eat and then return to the housing unit, following another line of tiles. Any deviation results in an immediate sanction.
For the "Broken Windows" theory to work, sanctions must be in place for probation violations. Even the
smallest violations must be met with a meaningful response from the probation officer. The roll of the
Violation of Probation Centers is to fulfill the need for an immediate, harsh sanction for probation violators. The benefit we anticipate realizing is increased public safety through probationers abiding by the
terms of supervision.
185
186
The Emergence of Seamless Correctional Services
Correctional services in Iowa reflect a unique relationship between communities and the state system. The
process of developing a strong and credible locally operated community correction system that is also
responsive to state system needs, spans more than 25 years of development. During this time, the Iowa
Department of Corrections (DOC) set the operating standards and established financial support through
the legislative process.
Today Iowa’s locally operated community-based correctional programs provide a comprehensive range of
sanctions and criminal behavior interventions that span pre-trial, pre-sentence investigation, probation and
parole supervision, residential and specialized services. Community correction leaders use state and local
funds, federal grants and offender fees to provide basic supervision as well as test innovative services such
as intensive supervision, day programs, young offender programs, domestic violence groups and classes,
sex offender treatment and drug courts. Iowa’s eight judicial district community programs manage nearly 80% of Iowa’s adult offender population with a 90% successful supervision outcome rate.
Even with these excellent results, community correction and state leaders embarked upon a challenging
mission to meet a new state standard for offender management that is seamless from court conviction
through completion of probation or parole. To reduce prison population growth, Iowa expanded community residential capacity by 300 and set the goal of reducing the number of technical violators sent to prison
by another 300. The success of these efforts is predicated on the ability of the courts, community corrections, institutions and the Board of Parole to place the "right offender at the right place at the right time."
187
The Emergence of Seamless Correctional Services
Seamless Cultural Shift
To strengthen the effectiveness of this joint endeavor, Iowa adopted a common risk management tool, the
Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), to guide decision making in sentencing, assignment to correctional supervision and treatment programs, and offender movement through the system. Ultimately the
LSI-R will also be integrated into institution classification.
A number of work groups have collaborated to foster a seamless culture that uses a common language and
strives to work towards common goals. Strengthening these shared approaches through common program
elements that include cognitive learning skills, sex offender treatment, substance abuse treatment and batterer’s education has required an abundant expenditure of time and energy. Numerous committees comprised of representation from the judiciary, community corrections, institutions and the Board of Parole
have focused on the following critical goals:
• Providing input into information management, risk assessment and coordination of efforts between
shareholders
• Making recommendations for assessments of offender risk, need, responsivity and a common case management system
• Determining the method to integrate the LSI-R within an institution setting
• Reviewing cognitive curriculums and recommending specific programs
• Redesigning institutional pre-release strategies, including shock probation, Violator Program and general population release
• Developing protocols to ensure that assessments are being completed and scored accurately
• Developing supervisor training on "best practices" and clinical case management supervision
Training on "best practices" and LSI-R certification has occurred on a very broad base to support the cultural shift. In the last year, nearly 900 probation/parole officers and supervisors, residential facility counselors and supervisors and institutional counselors and treatment directors have received the initial training, as have Parole Board members and several judges. Follow-up and specialized training will be ongoing.
Intermediate Criminal Sanctions Continuum
In 1996 the Iowa Legislature passed legislation authorizing intermediate criminal sanction continuums at
the local level to facilitate seamless administrative decision-making regarding offender supervision needs.
With appropriate plans approved by the court, community corrections is authorized to make decisions
across a wide range of sanctions in order to effectively supervise offenders in the community. This administrative decision making range encompasses the following spectrum:
• Moving offenders between levels of field supervision ranging from "paper caseloads" to intensive supervision and community residential facility placement
• Adjusting program and surveillance requirements to address offender needs ranging from house arrest,
curfews, electronic monitoring, sex offender treatment, young offenders, batterer’s education, etc.
• Utilizing short term incarceration options, to include -Day Shock Incarceration and Violator Facility
Placement (approximately six-month program)
Use of the continuum allows community corrections staff to respond immediately to offender behavior
without placing demands on the court’s time and results in a more efficient and effective response to inap-
188
Kip Kautzky
propriate offender behavior. The mission critical goals are to reduce further criminal behavior and victimization in the community and reduce capacity pressures on correctional facilities.
Information Flow
A critical element to a seamless operation is the efficient and timely movement of offender information
across service systems. Last year the Department of Corrections and Iowa’s community-based correction
programs implemented a computerized accounting system to track offender financial obligations and
transactions in institutions and community residential facilities. This initiative marked Iowa’s first experience with an operational offender information system that is shared across state institutions and local
community correction programs. Several state and federal correctional agencies have since purchased this
state of the art offender accounting system.
This year the Department of Corrections and Iowa’s community-based correction programs are implementing Phase One of a second shared offender information network—the Iowa Corrections Offender
Network, or ICON. ICON is a browser-based application that contains demographic, assessment, sentencing and program/intervention information that will be instantaneously available across the adult correctional system. Joint institution and community-based corrections user groups have worked for the past
two years to design a system that meets both daily operational and management information needs. As
ICON is implemented in community corrections, it will provide instantaneous paperless access to critical
work documents, such as the pre-sentence investigation, revocation reports and treatment and discharge
summaries. Additionally, offender movement, program progress and outcome data will be available for
management decisions.
The information sharing ability that ICON will provide will greatly diminish duplication of effort and
allow seamless transitions as the offender is sentenced, receives community correction services and is considered for parole or work release. Development of Phase Two of this system will begin in the fall of 2000
to provide a seamless continuation of offender movement and program involvement in the prison system.
Organizational Support
To support this seamless effort, the Iowa DOC has undergone an organizational change and departed from
the rather traditional alignment of institutional and community correction responsibilities. No longer is
there a separate operational division for community corrections and another for institutions.
Regionalization was introduced in 1998, creating two regional divisions with operational oversight for
both institutions and community-based correction programs in their respective regions.
This agency redirection has resulted in increased organizational support and resources being focused on
providing seamless services to offenders. Fundamental organizational learning has hinged on changing
the thinking that programs operate independently and autonomously without regard to offender movement
across a variety of program boundaries.
False starts, jerky lurches and a steady course have moved Iowa’s adult correctional system forward to
implement common and shared offender risk and need assessments, case plans and automated offender
information systems. As the courts and the Board of Parole make release and revocation decisions, the
ongoing development of program consistency and continuity will enable seamless offender movement
across program interventions in institutions and the community.
189
190
Re-Entry Partnership Initiative
Maryland Division of Correction
William W. Sondervan, Commissioner
Each year the Maryland Division of Correction releases over 13,000 inmates to Maryland’s communities.
These releases are highly concentrated, with Baltimore City receiving nearly 60% of all releases statewide.
Amazingly, nearly 40% of all offenders released under supervision return to three zip codes within
Baltimore City. Clearly, these ex-offenders, with their high probability of re-offending, place a severe
strain on scarce community resources. The division, in partnership with nine community partners, has
developed a design for a coordinated community reintegration which links releasees with community
resources. The division has submitted a grant request to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to support a
Department of Justice "Re-Entry Partnership Initiative."
Needs Assessment
A review of literature as well as a recent survey conducted by the Maryland Division of Correction of soon
to be released offenders indicates that employment is the number one concern of inmates being released
from prison. Inmates also identified education, training and housing as important concerns as they prepared to return to Maryland’s communities.
Although some inmates had training while incarcerated, and nearly a third had either an employment
readiness or social work group on transitional issues, the majority of offenders were ill prepared for return
to the community. Inmates were especially weak in their knowledge of available community resources
and how to effectively link with those resources when they were released.
191
A Vision for Community Linkage
The Division of Correction will partner with nine community organizations and governmental agencies to
establish solid linkages for inmates returning to the high-impact zip codes in Baltimore City. The
Enterprise Foundation is the critical partner in establishing linkages for releasees with community organizations. These will provide employment, housing, addiction treatment and family services. A full-time
transition coordinator will assess inmate transitional needs as they enter the correctional system to identify training and support services needed while the individual is incarcerated and upon release.
Job training will be provided at several institutional locations, including the Occupational Skills Training
Center (OSTC) in Baltimore. The OSTC is a partner of the Maryland State Department of Education and
several local community colleges. This co-educational facility provides approved training in warehousing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, building construction, auto repair, graphics/printing, office technology and roofing. Life skills and occupationally related math and reading are also taught. The
Foundation’s Community Employment Alliance will work with employers in these industries to encourage them to hire ex-offenders.
Services provided to inmates while incarcerated will continue to be provided upon the prisoners’ release
by Community Development Centers (CDC) and Village Centers in partnership with the Enterprise
Foundation. This will ensure continuity of care and provide the needed community-based supports to
facilitate the offenders’ successful and permanent re-entry to the community. Community Resource
Coordinators (CRCs), stationed at the CDCs and Village Centers, will be hired to provide aftercare management for offenders returning to the targeted communities.
Prior to the inmate’s release, the CRC will meet with the offender and transition coordinator to jointly
develop an aftercare case management plan. Clear objectives for each individual and the services needed to achieve them will be articulated. The CRC will make arrangements for transitional housing if needed and for other community-based services identified in the plan.
Upon the offender ’s release, the CRC will work with the ex-offender to ensure that he receives the services and the support identified in the case management plan. The CRC will also monitor to make sure that
appointments are kept. A partnership with the Maryland Transit Authority (MTA) will provide reduced
fares for those seeking services and a two-week free pass for those newly employed. All aspects of the
Re-Entry Partnership Initiative will be coordinated with local corrections and parole and probation authorities to maintain any court restrictions. In designated "Hot Spot" communities, this program will be coordinated with that public safety initiative.
When all objectives are successfully met, the follow-up phase will begin. At that point, the CRC will have
contact with each individual every three months for one year, and then twice in the second year.
Approximate completion time including the follow-up phase is two years. Should ex-offenders experience
setbacks in their re-entry (such as difficulties on the job or housing), the CRC will increase the frequency
of contact until the situation is stabilized.
Community Partners
Unfortunately, corrections has been isolated from the larger community despite the fact that over 90% of
all prisoners will return to the community. The Division’s Community Re-Entry Partnership will dramat-
192
William W. Sondervan
ically change the relationship with community organizations as the division forges community partnerships and linkages for releasees. The government and non-profit partnerships being developed are:
• The Enterprise Foundation—A national, non-profit community development intermediary. The
Enterprise Foundation provides resources and direction for the physical redevelopment of low-income
communities while simultaneously helping to change systems and develop the human capital necessary to
sustain change at the neighborhood level. The Foundation will also provide technical assistance to the
CDCs and Village Centers to develop and use the neighborhood resource networks necessary to support
ex-offenders. Ex-offenders will have an opportunity to participate in the Foundation’s Community
Employment Alliance, which helps low-income residents obtain employment. The Foundation has established collaborations with the business community and job training and placement organizations to
improve the employment of low-income people.
• Baltimore Police Department & the Division of Parole & Probation—The Division will assist with the
intensive supervision of clients through the "Hot Spot" initiative with the Division of Parole and Probation
and police department. Two of the targeted neighborhoods are currently Hot Spots. In these communities
the police will make random home visits with agents to ensure that the clients are abiding by the conditions of release and to support intervention strategies to support the offender’s success.
• Empower Baltimore Management Corporation—EBMC fosters sustained economic opportunities within Baltimore City’s Empowerment Zone and builds communities by implementing four primary strategies:
• Creating new jobs by attracting new businesses and expanding existing businesses
• Matching individuals to jobs created and removing barriers to employment
• Impacting on environmental factors affecting businesses and residents; and
• Increasing the ability of all stakeholders to manage change. EBMC is affiliated with two
Enterprise Zone Village Centers.
• Sandtown-Winchester CDC—SWCDC provides a variety of housing counseling, training and services to
residents of their community. SWCDC’s Housing Service provides an information center for housing
opportunities in the Sandtown-Winchester Urban Renewal Area. Its Homebuyer Education Program prepares homebuyers for the transition from renter to owner. The program has also rehabilitated vacant housing stock to serve as rental opportunities for its residents.
• Druid Heights CDC—DHCDC operates numerous programs that help community residents in improving their personal health and the community’s safety, increase business and economic activities and revitalize the neighborhood’s housing stock. Through its business and economic initiatives, DHCDC is working to promote commercial revitalization and increase job opportunities for neighborhood residents.
DHCDC is currently working with the Enterprise Foundation to implement an employment initiative with
United Parcel Service that will target community residents for employment.
• East Baltimore Midway CDC—EBMCDC, a community-based housing organization, works in partnership with area residents, municipal agencies, financial institutions, law enforcement and a host of other private and public resources to address issues of substandard housing, crime and sanitation. As a designated
Hot Spot community, EBMCDC is implementing a comprehensive community safety plan and is a participating agency in the Foundation’s Community Employment Alliance.
• EDEN Jobs—EDEN Jobs is a job search assistance program with a mission to facilitate economic devel-
193
opment through employment. A program of New Song Urban Ministries, EDEN Jobs provides job search
assistance, job counseling, job development and placement and job retention services to residents of
Sandtown-Winchester. Since starting in 1994, EDEN Jobs has registered over 1,500 residents of
Sandtown-Winchester in its program, and has placed over 300 residents in full and part-time jobs.
• Baltimore Urban League—BUL has a 30-year history of providing employment and training services to
Baltimore residents. BUL’s employment strategy is to provide customized employment services for
diverse population segments that include long-term unemployed, under-employed, displaced/dislocated
workers, hard-to-serve and first-time job seekers. Finally, an array of holistic supportive services such as
housing and educational assistance, and referrals for medical and clinical treatment are provided through
other BUL programs.
•Genesis Jobs—Founded in 1985 under the auspices of Episcopal Social Ministries, Genesis Jobs functions as an autonomous job services organization that assists unemployed men and women to manage the
job search process. Genesis Jobs provides:
• Job coaching, including assistance in interviewing, appearance and attitude
• Follow-through with prospective employers, and
• Retention services over a two-year period.
Evaluation
The Community Re-Entry Partnership is, quite frankly, new territory for the Division, at least in the scope
that is being proposed. It is critical that the project is carefully managed and outcomes evaluated to measure program impact. For that reason, and in order to obtain an objective evaluation, a qualified independent researcher will be hired. Objective measures of program success will be identified before the project
begins. Among the objective measures will be the degree of successful linkages to community resources,
job placement and retention, and completion of the goals specified in the participant’s individual community service plans.
Conclusion
Public safety and effective management require that corrections expand the scope of operations by more
effectively preparing offenders for release and by establishing effective partnerships with community
organizations. The Division of Correction is taking a comprehensive view of community linkages to significantly improve post-release services for offenders returning to three high-impact areas of Baltimore
City. The division’s experience with this innovative program may prove instructive for other correctional
agencies.
194
Public Safety Transition Program
Massachusetts Department of Correction
Michael T. Maloney, Commissioner
Approximately two years ago, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) received a great deal
of negative public attention for its role in the transition of offenders back into the community. It was felt
that DOC could do a better job of preparing offenders for release and decreasing the number of offenders
going directly into emergency homeless shelters from Department custody. A team of treatment professionals was asked to review the release preparation process and make recommendations for changes or
enhancements.
The Department historically felt that it’s responsibility for the offender ended when he or she was released
from custody, either through parole or the expiration of sentence. A closer look revealed that the DOC does
have a role in the offenders return to the community, the role of transition planning. Appropriate transition planning is an important part of public safety. A system that prepared inmates for release, both in the
programming they participated in during their incarceration and the plan they had in place upon their
release, was needed. The committee recommended the implementation of a Public Safety Transition
Program. This recommendation included a change in programming, and more importantly, an underlying
change in philosophy.
The Public Safety Transition Program consists of two main components: a risk reduction plan developed
as part of the initial classification process and transition workshops designed to establish a comprehensive
transition plan as the inmate approaches release. The risk reduction plan directs the inmate through an
appropriate sequence of programming that specifically targets areas of need. Program referrals are based
on the Department’s recidivism/needs assessments, educational assessment and the social history that is
recorded upon an inmate’s initial intake at the reception centers. Referrals include all levels of academic
education, from literacy through GED; intensive residential treatment focused on anger management, criminal thinking and relapse prevention; domestic violence treatment, sex offender treatment; HIV/AIDs
195
Public Safety Transition Program
Education; Parenting Education; and vocational education. Inmates are expected to participate in programming throughout their incarceration and are monitored in conjunction with normal classification
processes for program compliance and completion. In the first year of implementation, 2,168 risk reduction plans were completed. These included 9,766 program referrals.
The second component of the Public Safety Transition Program begins when the inmate is within one year
of earliest possible release date. At this point, the Public Safety Transition Program begins the development of a transition plan. A team of ten transition planners provides a five-day workshop to assist inmates
in accessing the resources necessary to develop their transition plans. Transition plans are comprehensive
and address areas such as housing, medical, mental health, substance abuse, employment, education and
leisure time. Resources are provided during the workshops to ensure that transition plans are detailed and
address all pertinent areas. Transition planners also provide individual assistance as needed to workshop
participants. This may include setting up specific appointments or community residential placements.
Transition planners are trained in case management and transition planning in order to have access to the
most up to date information about program and service availability. In the first year of programming,
1,666 inmates completed the transition workshops and a comprehensive transition plan.
After the first year of implementation, an accountability component was added to the transition planning
process to ensure that the plans were viable and effective. A tracking process was required to ensure that
the program was working the way it was intended. Beginning in September 1999 DOC piloted a transition planning triage process at a level-four facility. After several revisions the triage process was implemented system-wide in January 2000. The directors of treatment at each site have been designated as the
transition planning coordinators. They are responsible to convene and chair meetings of all involved parties a minimum of once per month. The triage team is made up of several different agency and vendor
staff, all of whom have some responsibility for the transition planning process. The team includes transition planners, institution parole officers, medical and mental health staff and representatives of the
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. The triage team reviews an inmate’s transition plan at 12,
six, three, two and one months prior to release. Significant barriers to transition, such as homelessness,
are identified and addressed as early in the process as possible. Each member of the team addresses their
area of expertise and the team works together to ensure the most effective transition plan possible.
More work must be done, especially in the area of interagency collaboration. However, some important
first steps toward positively impacting the transition process have been taken. DOC is already seeing
some positive effects, including a significant increase in the number of offenders entering into community-based recovery homes upon release and a 39% decrease in the number of offenders going into emergency homeless shelters upon release from custody.
196
Community Partnership for Restoration Program
The Community Partnership for Restoration (CPR) Program is a community-based program developed to
target and provide intensive supervision services to high-need, high-risk offenders at time of sentencing,
as an alternative to incarceration. The supervision services are supported by a cognitive treatment
approach, intensive substance abuse treatment and restorative justice practices. An intensive supervision
program was developed, enhanced with cognitive restructuring, chemical dependency treatment, employment, vocation/education resources and a battery of offender assessments.
This project also includes several restorative justice practices. The restorative justice concept involves
restoring the victim, restoring the community and restoring the offender. This concept redefines crime as
an act against a victim and a local community as opposed to a crime against the state. The victim and
community join with the offender to decide how the harm will be repaired. Reparation Boards have been
formulated that include victims and community members. The restorative justice model includes face-toface periodic reviews of the offender’s progress. Victim impact classes also have been developed to raise
the offender’s awareness of the long-term effect of crime on their victims.
An initial offender Risk/Need Profile Information Checklist is developed for the court. This brief assessment assists the court in determining if the defendant fits the targeted group. The profile checklist is then
attached to the Sentence and Judgement sheet. The formal assessment process begins immediately upon
the sentencing date. The offender is directed to report to a residential facility that contracts with the
Missouri Department of Corrections. The offender remains within the residential facility until completion
of the assessment by the probation and parole officer, approximately five to ten days. The probation and
parole officer develops an intervention plan to be implemented immediately upon completion of the
assessment.
197
The assessment includes an evaluation of several risk and need factors. The probation and parole officer
administers a number of assessment tools that contribute to the overall supervision, intervention and treatment plans. These tools identify personal stability, drug abuse, job readiness, literacy/education, vocational skills and other risk factors. The assessment also addresses the offender’s family/significant others and
provides orientation and transitional support for the offender’s release to the community.
There are three phases of supervision for a minimum of 12 months. The probation and parole officer is
allowed to combine various types of contacts but must complete a minimum number of face-to-face
encounters in each of the phase levels. The phase contacts are as follows:
Phase I – 90 Days
Cognitive Restructuring/Positive Solutions
Positive Office Visit (POV)
Home Visit (HV)
Significant Other (S.O.)
Tx or Other Collateral Contact (EMP, School, etc.)
2x week
1x week
2x month
1x week
1x week
Phase II – 90 Days
POV
EMP Check (EC)
HV
S.O.
Treatment or Other Collateral Contacts
1x week
2x month
1x month
1x week
1x week
Phase III – Six Months
Enhance Supervision Level
POV
1x week
POV/PCV Option
1x week
EC
1x month
HV (if needed)
1x month
Court/Reparation Board Reviews:
Serious supervision violations will be immediately referred to the court for disposition.
Non-serious violation reviews
30/60/90 Days
Review of case Progress
30/90/180 Days
The program has eight key components:
Assessment Offenders are received from the Bulk Division of the 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis City.
Additional offenders are placed in the program as an alternative to revocation and subsequent incarceration. The offender is remanded to the Dismas Residential Facility during the assessment phase to provide
a highly structured environment for the evaluation. The offender participates in a seven- to ten-day assessment process at the Dismas Residential Facility where the following assessment tools and procedures are
implemented. The assessment phase also serves as a "shock" period designed to stabilize the offender.
The following assessment tools are used:
• Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) -The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is an indepth screening tool that has been researched and evaluated as highly effective for its use in screening
high-need and high-risk offenders. If offenders are deemed to be low-need and low-risk, they are referred
198
Dora B. Schriro
to alternative programs within the community.
• MAPP - The MAPP is a Missouri Department of Corrections sanctioned assessment tool designed to
determine the level of treatment needed to meet the offenders needs.
• Risk/Need - The Missouri Department of Corrections Risk/Need scale is completed at program entry.
This tool evaluates the offenders’ targeted needs on a monthly basis, allowing the officer to monitor the
offender’s progress.
• Social History - A Social History will be taken to further evaluate the offender’s eligibility for the program.
• Substance Abuse Assessment/Orientation - All offenders are referred to the Gateway Free and Clean
Treatment Program. This contracted vendor conducts an orientation/assessment component that all offenders are required to attend. The offender also begins his participation in GED classes while at the Free and
Clean site during the assessment period.
• BECK Depression Inventory - In cases that show multiple previous treatments and continual relapse, a
BECK may be given to make an assessment as to whether or not depression may be a major factor contributing to the relapse. This also may be given if there is an indication of psychological problems in the
MAPP results.
Substance Abuse
After the initial assessment/orientation, offenders are required to participate in chemical dependency treatment at Free and Clean – the vendor contracted to provide treatment services. The results from the LSI,
MAPP and other assessment information determine the level of treatment provided to the offender.
Substance abuse services consist of:
• Inpatient services
• Intensive outpatient
• Basic outpatient
• Aftercare services
The CPR staff work closely with the treatment staff to coordinate and support the treatment process. The
treatment staff and probation officers participate in formal bi-weekly staff meetings and maintain daily
telephone contact to ensure offender accountability and maintain open communications.
Cognitive Treatment
The offenders participate in cognitive groups titled "Thinking for a Change" conducted by CPR staff.
Offenders meet on a regular basis in concert with their level of substance abuse treatment. The cognitive
approach is utilized because one of the major problem areas for offenders is decision-making skills.
Offenders fail to address poor decision making by projecting their situations and consequences of decisions on others. As offenders become more aware of how they make decisions, their decision-making ability improves.
Employment
An employment specialist prepares a job readiness profile on the offenders and conducts workshops to prepare the offender for employment. The employment specialist is tied into the Missouri Job Service computer system and is able to access state employment information to assist the offender. After the offender
secures employment, the counselor maintains contact with the offender to help ensure job retention.
199
Reparation Board
The Reparation Board is a group of citizens who meet with the offender and probation office to review the
overall progress of the offender. Reparation Board members are community representatives who are able
to articulate to the offender the effects their crime has on the community in which they live. The
Reparation Board has the ability to make recommendations regarding sanctions in response to the offender’s behavior.
The Reparation Board and/or the court will have sanctions at their disposal such as community service,
length of supervision, weekend shock time, electronic monitoring and curfews. Positive sanctions include
movie tickets, dinner vouchers and family outings. Other funds needed for work equipment, emergency
housing, etc., are provided by the local Probation and Parole Citizens Advisory Board.
Victim Impact Classes
Offenders are required to participate in Victim Impact classes. This ten-week session analyzes the physical, financial, psychological and physical effects that crime has on its victims. The class focuses on property, crime, burglary and robbery, DWI, homicide, gang violence, drug dealing, domestic violence, child
abuse and sexual assault. The classes further raise the offender’s awareness on how their criminal behavior affects victims and the greater community.
General Equivalency Diploma (GED)
Each offender is assessed for his/her ability to complete a GED Program. Those offenders deemed appropriate begin participation during the first week of assessment while a resident of the Dismas Residential
Facility and continue with the program conducted on-site at Free and Clean.
Outcomes
• 416 offenders have received services
• 186 offenders are actively engaged at present
• 70 offenders have graduated
• 256 offenders diverted from Division of Adult Institutions
• All offenders in the program are required to attend Victim Impact Classes – There is a 90% successful
completion rate
200
Transitional Turf: Assessment and Treatment Centers
Ensure Productive Community Placement After Prison
New Jersey State Department of Corrections
Introduction
Historically, the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ (NJDOC) continuum of care did not look much
different from those that had emerged or were evolving in other state correctional systems throughout the
country.
Until April of 1998, continuum of care for the New Jersey Department of Corrections implied treatment
beginning within the institution, either in the general population or in a therapeutic community (TC), progressing to a residential community program and wrapping up, for the most part, with parole. Programs
in the institutional general population include education – basic skills, Graduate Equivalency Diploma
(GED) preparation, special interest classes – vocational training, industrial arts, substance abuse education, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, parenting skills, Parents Anonymous and religious
services and education. To these programs, substance abuse treatment for the moderately to severely
addicted inmates is added in the form of 1,271 TC beds distributed over ten program units within five of
the state’s institutions.
The residential community program of over 2,700 beds is supported by ten not-for-profit providers in
more than 30 locations throughout the state. These programs reflect a diversity of treatment approaches
including various levels of addiction treatment, anger management, life skills and job readiness skills
training, GED preparation, vocational education, job placement, work release, etc. In the final phase of
the continuum, the offender is released to parole supervision which, depending on need, may involve
intensive supervision for offenders with addiction disorders, assignment to a day reporting center, electronic monitoring or general supervision.
201
Transitional Turf
In 1998, however, New Jersey’s continuum undertook a significant departure from the traditional mold
with the introduction of Talbot Hall, a 500-bed Assessment and Treatment Center. This new component
was to serve as a link or "transitional turf" between institution-based treatment and community placement.
The NJDOC contracted with Community Education Centers, a not-for-profit organization with a wellestablished reputation in the field of community corrections, to assist in the development of the
Assessment and Treatment Center model and to integrate it into New Jersey’s continuum of care. The
goals for the Assessment and Treatment Center were:
• Classification – Assessment of the potential risk to public safety posed by a resident, and determination,
based on this assessment, of the appropriateness of placing him in a community-based program
• Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Assessment of the resident’s personal assets, competencies, interests and treatment needs including as many of the significant and empirically-determined criminogenic
risk factors as possible
• Comprehensive Treatment Plans – Joint resident and counselor development of an individualized
"Continuum of Care Treatment Plan" to address identified needs and risk factors as well as to set forth realistic education, career, job, family and other personal goals
• Orientation/Treatment – Preparation of a resident for the challenges of living in the community where he
will have increasing responsibility to substitute internal behavioral controls for the external, institutionbased controls to which he has grown accustomed
• Motivation for Change – Promotion of resident’s recognition of his need to grow and develop and of his
motivation for treatment and change
By April of 1999, the Department was encouraged enough by the contribution of Talbot Hall that it contracted, again with Community Education Centers, to establish Bo Robinson as a second Assessment and
Treatment Center with 320 beds. Presently, both Talbot Hall and Bo Robinson utilize similar, highly integrated assessment and treatment protocols for residents during 60–90 day stays at these facilities.
The Resident Population Description and Referral Process
The Department reviews applications and may approve for transfer to an Assessment and Treatment Center
any adult male applicants from 11 institutions who are at least 18 years of age and meet the following eligibility criteria:
• Within 12-18 months of parole, parole eligibility or maximum sentence date
• Attainment of full minimum-custody status
• Positive psychological evaluation, within the last six months, that speaks to the applicant’s readiness to
re-enter society without posing a risk to himself or others
• Criminal history free of arson, kidnapping and sex offenses
The majority of the residents are from poor, high-crime urban settings. Their educational backgrounds are
weak, with an average achievement of a fourth-grade reading level. Most have a history of substance abuse
and an unstable family life. The typical Assessment and Treatment Center resident is between 18 and 40
years old.
202
Jack Terhune
The Assessment Protocol
The assessment protocol is an evolving one based on the increasing amounts of information required by
the community programs to guide their treatment interventions and to develop more inclusive community-based aftercare programs and plans. Presently, the assessment protocol includes the following:
• Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory- Third Version (SASSI-3) – The SASSI, administered three
to seven days after a resident’s arrival, is a brief, objective substance abuse screening instrument that identifies individuals who have a high probability of a substance-abuse disorder. The SASSI results generate
information about the resident’s level of substance dependence, risk of acting-out behavior, evidence of
any random response pattern, level of defensiveness and any report of being in emotional pain.
The results of the SASSI test are transferred to the resident’s senior counselor to assist in initial treatment
planning. They are also included, together with the results of the other tests that follow, in a comprehensive assessment package that will accompany him throughout the continuum.
• Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) and the Wonderlic Basic Skills Tests (WBST)-The WPT and WBST, a
pair of cognitive ability tests administered approximately three weeks into a resident’s stay, are used to
assess the resident’s current level of cognitive functioning. The WPT is a short-form test of general cognitive ability that is timed (12 minutes). The results of the WPT can be used to interpret the resident’s
training needs, educational potential and job potential. The WBST is a short-form measure of adult jobrelated language and quantitative skills. The WBST is designed to measure the job-readiness of adults relative to their math and language skills. The results of the WBST can be useful in determining if the resident has the necessary language and math skills to successfully handle the written and computational
requirements of specific occupations. Both WPT and WBST results are integrated into the resident’s
Continuum of Care Treatment Plan and his assessment summary. The results are shared with the resident
so that he can begin to formulate a plan of action to increase his chances of occupational success when he
is in a work release program.
• Biopsychosocial Interview – This interview by an assessment counselor is conducted after one month in
the facility. It covers the resident’s current charges and past criminal history, history of substance abuse
and treatment, medical history, occupational history, educational history, religion and family-of-origin. A
pictorial representation of the resident’s family history (genogram) is constructed to span more than three
generations. The genogram questionnaire includes information about family history of drug/alcohol
abuse, deaths and reason for deaths, family criminal history, psychiatric history, employment history, educational background, home addresses of family members, history of physical, mental, or sexual abuse and
current relationships with family members. The resident’s answers are matched against his file information, and the resident is asked about any discrepancies between his answers and the file. This information
is forwarded to the resident’s senior counselor to assist with immediate treatment and the development of
the Continuum of Care Treatment Plan.
• Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) – The COMPAS is
administered following the biopsychosocial interview. The COMPAS is a risk assessment instrument that
is computer-administered and scored. The questionnaire includes static and dynamic factors about the resident. After the completion of the COMPAS questions, a profile is generated. The profile includes a graph
using deciles to assess the resident’s overall risk potential in the categories of violence, failure to appear,
community non-compliance and recidivism. The graph also contains a section called "the offender char-
203
Transitional Turf
acteristic percentiles" that includes history of violence, level of current violence, educational and occupational needs. The offender characteristic percentiles can be utilized for treatment planning purposes, while
the overall risk potential scales can assist with a determination of community placement and level of supervision for the resident.
• Self-Directed Search (SDS) – The SDS is a self-administered career inventory tool that uses Holland’s
six-personality theory: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional (RIASEC) to
assess the resident’s career interests. The results are shared with the resident and his senior counselor and
incorporated in his comprehensive assessment package.
• Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) – Some residents need further evaluation and in this case, personality tests are administered. Reasons for further testing include problematic behavior while a resident
in the Assessment and Treatment Center or a file history of psychiatric problems or violent crime convictions. For these residents, the PAI is administered. This assessment instrument has 22 non-overlapping
scales that assess a variety of psychological dimensions including egocentricity, stimulus seeking, verbal
and physical aggression. The PAI includes a violence potential index.
• Monthly Behavior Summary – Although not an objective assessment tool, the monthly behavior summary, which is completed by the resident’s senior counselor, is a critical piece of assessment package and
is integrated into the assessment summary. It outlines the resident’s level of program participation, his
behavior in programs and his job participation. The monthly behavioral summary represents a dynamic
portrayal of the resident’s current functioning in a variety of domains.
Once all the assessment information is compiled, a summary and recommendation for community placement is prepared. No one instrument or piece of information is used as the sole determiner for a placement recommendation; rather, all data gathered on the resident enters into the formulation of a recommendation. After a 60- to 90-day stay at one of the Assessment and Treatment Centers, the resident’s case
is presented before a classification committee chaired by a representative from the Department. Placement
decisions are derived from the evidence presented. Assignments are made to specific community programs based on both the resident’s current needs, as revealed through the assessment protocol, and his
anticipated parole/release address.
The Treatment Protocol
The Assessment and Treatment Centers utilize a treatment protocol that emphasizes educational groups
and lectures. These are designed to restructure the resident’s thinking and ultimately impact his anti-social
and problematic behavior. This treatment approach is applied within the framework of a modified therapeutic community and incorporates the clinical techniques of a cognitive behavioral paradigm. The
Assessment and Treatment Centers provide a forum for the resident to apply what he learns and for the
team of treatment counselors to assess his progress in developing key cognitive and behavioral competencies.
Curriculum - The core curriculum has been specifically designed to address the individual needs of the resident as well as common criminogenic risk factors. It includes continuum of criminality, defining of criminality, "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," barriers to change, motivational techniques, addiction
and recovery and life skills (Vital Issues).
204
Jack Terhune
Continuum of Care Treatment Plan - Resident treatment plans are formulated through the synthesis of
information sent from the prison program, the testing done at the Assessment and Treatment Center, observation of behavior and self-report. An initial treatment plan is devised within the first ten days of the resident’s arrival to the Assessment and Treatment Center. This treatment plan is formulated with information following the resident from the prison program and the results of the SASSI. It is updated within 30
days of the resident’s arrival using the resident monthly behavior report (drafted by the senior counselor),
staff observation and the results of the WPT and the WBST. The information gathered from the biopsychosocial is also pertinent data that is used in this treatment plan revision. Results from the COMPAS,
SDS and PAI, if available, are subsequently factored into the plan.
In a last iteration, the complete Continuum of Care Treatment Plan is formulated. This plan is derived
from the resident’s present version of his treatment plan as well as an interview with the resident facilitated by his senior counselor. The resident takes ownership of his treatment continuum through reflecting
information and insight about his plans for recovery, plans to remain crime free, his knowledge of relapse
prevention (crime/drugs/alcohol) and his intent to use community support systems. In addition, information is added pertaining to his educational, employment and substance abuse goals and objectives. Risk
factors and resident spirituality are also addressed through this process. This Continuum of Care
Treatment Plan is finalized and transferred with the resident to his next step, a community program.
Benefits resulting from the inclusion of Assessment and Treatment Centers in the Continuum – In meeting the goals outlined earlier in this paper, the Assessment and Treatment Centers yield a number of benefits:
• Economies of Scale through Consolidation and Centralization of Resources - The Department centralized a significant portion of its assessment function under a single provider, Community Education
Centers, in the facilities of Talbot Hall and Bo Robinson. Consequently, there is no need for each community program to replicate the clinical assessment and psychometric expertise required for these assessment services. The community program providers can look to the Assessment and Treatment Centers to
adopt and adequately evaluate the assessment tools they require to meet their information needs in developing individualized treatment programs and other interventions.
• Reduction in Community Program Failures - The number of walkaways that typically occur during the
first days or weeks that residents spend in community programs should decrease. The Assessment and
Treatment Center, as a secure facility, would pose for the resident a less dramatic entrance into the community. Through the center’s orientation program, the resident prepares to anticipate spontaneous urges
to flee and rehearses appropriate responses to those urges. He contemplates the issue of "escape" in an
environment where there still remain sufficient external barriers to such a prohibited act. In a similar vein,
behaviors in community programs warranting disciplinary action are anticipated to diminish as well.
• Improvement in Matching Residents to Treatment Programs - With over 30 community-based programs
in New Jersey, no two are alike. This diversity is a plus, however, only to the extent that the assets, interests and needs of the residents can be matched to the individual treatment and resource profiles of the community programs. The comprehensive assessment information and treatment plans, developed at the
Assessment and Treatment Centers, allow for just such matching of a resident to community program.
• Establishment of Realistic Educational/Career/Work/Other Goals – With increasingly more comprehensive and sophisticated assessments of a resident’s cognitive capacities, basic skills and vocational apti-
205
Transitional Turf
tudes, the expectations of the resident and treatment counselors for what is possible will be more firmly
grounded in reality. As a result, pursuit of unrealistic employment and educational goals should diminish.
• Improvement in the Ability to Attract Employers – The availability of objective assessment information
pertaining to a resident’s cognitive abilities, basic skills and job-related skills should increase dramatically his marketability to potential employers.
Conclusion
The addition of the Assessment and Treatment Centers to the New Jersey Department of Corrections’continuum of care radically enhanced its ability to assess the risk and needs of residents and to prepare them
more adequately for their transition back into society. In addition, these centers enabled the Department
to capitalize on the diversity of its community programs by more effectively matching them to the needs
and individualized Continuum of Care Treatment Plans of the residents.
In conjunction with the Community Education Centers, the Department already is engaged in efforts to
augment the comprehensive assessment protocol now in place with indicators of other needs that can be
linked to community-based treatment protocols, parole initiatives and aftercare support systems. For
example, the Department is presently exploring assessment tools to project on-the-job reliability and other
measures to assess readiness for change. The agency is also working within the Assessment and Treatment
Centers to develop an orientation/treatment program intervention to further ease a resident’s transition into
community programs, particularly one who is a graduate of a prison-based TC.
206
Community Policing Partnerships:
Taking Back Our Streets
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Overview
The "Taking Back Our Streets" Community Policing Partnership strategy involves probation and surveillance officers from the Division of Community Correction (DCC) working side by side with community
policing officers from local police and sheriff departments. These partnerships are designed to foster interagency collaboration for monitoring offenders within communities. This teaming concept has DCC and
local agencies sharing information and data, coordinating surveillance efforts, conducting monitoring team
meetings, focusing on curfew enforcement and participating in community enrichment activities such as
life skills training, recreational events, safety fairs and education support. This inter-agency cooperation
enhances the efforts of all agencies to reduce crime and impact the supervision of offenders, especially
repeat offenders. The elements of community policing partnerships also provide a means to focus on
DCC’s community correction strategy objectives of control, compliance, enforcement and treatment.
Mission
The purpose of this initiative is to incorporate resources from the community and local law enforcement
agencies with the DCC to enhance public safety, control offenders and provide treatment for offenders
under supervision within the communities.
Objectives
• To establish and enhance the sharing of information between law enforcement, DCC and citizens
• To utilize community resources to aid in ensuring that offenders comply with the terms and conditions
of their probation or post release supervision
207
Community Policing Partnerships
• To cross-train personnel from local law enforcement agencies and DCC to enhance their performance
and understanding of community policing
• To enhance the enforcement efforts of DCC through special operations with law enforcement agencies
• Increased usability and participation of DCC in communities by actively assisting in the development
and implementation of community enrichment programs
Community Policing Partnership Target Population
• Intermediate Punishment Sanctions
• Non-compliant Community Punishment
• High Priority such as sex offenders, drug offenders, domestic violence offenders, post-release offenders
or high-school aged offenders
Community Policing Partnership Control and Enforcement
• Curfew enforcement
• Random drug screens
• Surveillance
• Special operations
• School resource officers
• Team monitoring meetings
• DCC/Community/Law enforcement
Community Policing Partnership Treatment and Prevention
• Education
• Life skills training
• Substance abuse treatment
• Counseling
• Community service
• Neighborhood projects
Community Policing Partnership Key Elements
• Team approach
• Information sharing
• Surveillance
• Special joint operations
• Community involvement
208
Transitioning Inmates Due For Release
North Carolina Department of Corrections
In January of 1999, an award of $16,000 was made to the North Carolina Department of Correction by the
Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC) for assistance in developing the Transitional Services Planning and
Training Project proposed by the Division of Prison's (DOP) Educational Services Section.
A series of progressive steps has been accomplished over the past few months, moving this project forward in a manner that demonstrates widespread commitment to implementing a comprehensive system of
transitional services for inmates due for release.
One of the first steps taken by the project oversight committee, comprised of programs and educational
services staff, was to retain the services of a qualified project consultant. Under the terms of the GCC
grant, the consultant is responsible for developing a resource manual, a portfolio system and a job-training curriculum to support the implementation of improved transition services at the pilot sites. Each of
these project tasks is on schedule for completion in the spring of 2000.
A project leadership team was formed from each of the institutions that volunteered to participate as pilot
sites for the project: Morrison Youth Institution, NC Correctional Institution for Women, Polk Youth
Institution, Sandhills Youth Center and Western Youth Institution. Three-member teams were appointed
from each unit by the superintendent, consisting of the assistant superintendent for programs, the director
of education and the case management supervisor. The combined leadership team has met three times since
its formation and has provided valuable direction and input for the project’s development.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provided support for the project’s startup with several forms
of technical assistance. A specialist in transition planning for inmates was sponsored by NIC to advise the
state on its readiness to implement improved transition services and to conduct training for the project
209
Transitioning Inmates Due for Release
team. NIC also sponsored the keynote presenter for Educational Services’ Correctional Educational
Conference. The theme focused on the need for DOP and its partner agencies to work together in providing for the inmate’s "transition to the world of work."
NIC then sent a two-member, interagency team from the NC Employment Security Commission’s
Offender Program and DOPEducational Services to its national academy in Colorado for a weeklong program in Offender Employment Specialist training. The results of the training have been incorporated into
the transition project, including strategies for strengthening ties with DOP’s partner agencies in pre- and
post-release transitioning. The training sessions stressed that interagency cooperation with such partner
agencies as ESC, Vocational Rehabilitation, community colleges, JobLink Centers, Department of Social
Services, Prison Fellowship, business and industry and other public and private transitional organizations
is critical to the success of an effective continuum of transition services. The agency also stressed that it
is imperative that Community Corrections and DOP’s other internal partners be included in the project’s
planning to ensure that all applicable resources and linkages have been included in the transition process.
The Chief of Program Services has stressed since the project’s inception that the basic elements needed to
achieve a system of transition services already exist and merely need to be linked and coordinated in a systemic process, which the resources being developed by the program consultant will facilitate.
The project schedule calls for field-testing the new transition initiative, tentatively called "JobStart," at the
five project sites during the 2000-01 program year, although components of the project, such as the
resource manual, may be implemented before then. The long-range goal of the project is to have every participating inmate leave prison with a well developed, comprehensive plan for securing and retaining gainful employment that an offender has a personal stake in making a reality and which can turn ex-offenders
into taxpayers.
210
Transition for Success
Dave Cook, Director
Ninety-five percent of the almost 10,000 inmates in Oregon’s prisons will return to Oregon communities
upon their release. Of significant concern to Oregonians are the types of people who will return to society. Are they productive citizens? Are they skilled workers? Are they capable of paying taxes? Or are they
just better criminals? In short, what is the taxpayers’ return on their investment in incarceration?
Approximately 300 inmates per month complete their prison sentences and are released by the Oregon
Department of Corrections into their home communities. The rate of recidivism is approximately 31% after
three years with the highest failure rate occurring within the first year of release from prison. In keeping
with the Department’s mission of holding offenders accountable for their actions and reducing the risk of
future criminal behavior, the Department embarked on a project to increase the rate of successful transition of the offenders into the community.
Accordingly, the Department analyzed the component parts of its basic functions in order to better integrate the core responsibilities:
• Running well managed institutions
• Developing a productive inmate work force
• Providing essential treatment, education and work opportunities
• Supervising offenders in the community
The Department has several recognized transition programs already in existence within a variety of institutions and counties. These programs provide a solid foundation in developing the plan for this agencywide transition project.
211
Background: Measures 11 & 17
In November 1994 Oregonians overwhelmingly passed Ballot Measures 11 and 17. These "get tough on
criminals" initiatives provided some of the impetus for the Department’s examination of its culture, operations and outcomes. The result? Some unique opportunities to change the status quo. Measure 11 overrides Oregon’s sentencing guidelines by establishing mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent
crimes, dropping the eligibility age to 15, and requiring convicted offenders to serve their full sentence
with no time off for good behavior. By increasing both the length of stay and the number of admissions to
prison, Oregon’s prison population is expanding significantly. Measure 17, the Prison Reform and Inmate
Work Act, requires all inmates to work 40 hours per week, 20 of which can be education and/or treatment
that prepare inmates to be productive workers.
Developing a Systematic Approach
The DOC seized the opportunity provided by Measure 17 to rethink inmate assignment management. In
1996, the Department implemented the Performance Recognition and Awards System (PRAS). The goal
of this system is to encourage inmate pro-social behavior by awarding cash and non-cash incentives to
inmates for successful participation in assigned programs, treatment, cognitive restructuring programs and
work assignments. Failure to satisfactorily perform in assignments and/or institutional misconduct results
in a reduction of the rewards and privileges.
Another innovation prompted by the implementation of Measure 17 is the Inmate Incarceration and
Transition Plan (IITP). The Department developed and is currently implementing the IITP to integrate an
automated intake assessment process with a progressive, automated and scheduled incarceration plan.
Each inmate’s plan is designed to systematically overcome personal and professional obstacles such as
alcohol and drug addictions, anger management, poor health, limited education and work skill deficiencies.
The IITP is one of the newest modules added to an automated data system known as the Corrections
Information System (CIS). CIS also includes an integrated statewide felony offender tracking and management system and other related information systems. Criminal justice agencies statewide use the shared
data systems to ensure effective operations of state prisons and county community corrections agencies.
Automation Tracks Progress
Inmate progress is automatically tracked, and outcome information is instantly available on a one-stop data
access screen. The IITP application offers cursor-sensitive access to related real time critical data from
around the Department. On-line programs include education, health services, alcohol and drug treatment,
work schedules, mental health services, security threat group management and summary data on the number of compliant hours under Measure 17 requirements.
The automated IITP planning tool allows the prison counselor to function in much the same way as a college counselor tracks the progress of students through required courses for graduation. The system holds
the inmate accountable for simple goals: become an educated, positive worker while in prison and return
to the community a person capable of responsible behavior as well as a qualified, productive member of
the work force. The IITP is successful because it integrates the components of incarceration with a common goal – components that had operated almost independently of one another.
212
Dave Cook
Active Ingredients of IITP Success
• A quality, integrated program system delivering nationally recognized models in basic education, treatment and work-based education
• Automated 24-hour inmate scheduling system that tracks each inmate’s daily schedule in half-hour segments. This is the first tool of its kind in the country. The Department knows precisely where each and
every inmate is 24-hours a day. This system has increased the security of the institution while ensuring that
inmates are in appropriate locations.
• Integration of the Performance Recognition and Awards System (PRAS). Inmates do not receive pay for
work. Rather, they earn small cash awards that reinforce pro-social behavior by tracking their productive
participation in their programs, including work. Each day, inmates earn points for successfully completing
each of his/her defined activities. Minimum point values are awarded for positive progress in education,
treatment and transition programs. An escalating scale of points is assigned to jobs based on skill prerequisites and job complexity. The more skilled the inmate, the more points he or she earns. Point awards are
accumulated by month. A matrix of cash for points is used to determine the amount of each individual’s
award.
• Anti-social behavior is sanctioned! Failure in any portion of an inmate’s daily schedule of activities
results in the loss of all of that day’s points. A program failure in any single program or work assignment
results in a 100 % loss of all awards for an entire month. No points, no cash.
• An integrated data system has allowed the Department to more efficiently manage scarce resources. It
helps manage key resources through measures that:
• Effectively assign correctional officers to areas that match potential risks
• Plan the use of limited prison facility capacity/resources
• Efficiently manage the use and planning of educational, treatment and work resources
• Record the actual occurrence and participation for all statutorily mandated activities
• Better focus inmate time and energy
Transition and IITP
The Transition Project is designing and implementing an effective process to integrate felons into their
communities. To assist in achieving this objective, transitional planning needs to begin when the felon
enters the corrections system. Throughout the period of incarceration, using the IITP to achieve a seamless flow, staff, inmates and community representatives will work in partnership on issues that are key to
the safe and successful felon transition. In essence, the IITP will be used as the tool to bridge the felon’s
institution and community life. Parole officers in the community will continue to use the plan in an effort
to help integrate the felon into the community and, where possible, to match institution programs to community programs.
Results to Date
Is the Incarceration/Transition Planning system perfect? Is the Department completely satisfied? The
answers are "no." This is definitely a work in progress. However, some key indicators suggest the
Department is on the right track.
Since the IITP was coupled with the PRAS system in April 1998, the Oregon Department of Corrections
improved the efficient use of resources, increased inmate participation in productive activities and
increased the safety of the prisons. Consider the following measures of success since implementation:
213
• A 150 % increase in the number of inmates participating and succeeding in long-term programs such as
education, work and treatment programs
• A 19 % reduction in major disciplinary reports
• A 52 % reduction in minor disciplinary reports
• Increased graduation rates: the Department is ranked second of 17 Oregon programs for completion of
GED programs taught to adult populations. The Department has similar rankings for English as a Second
Language and Adult Basic Education.
The Department is just completing the first phase of the Transition Project. Soon Oregon prisons will be
doing a better job to prepare each inmate for the realities and challenges of work, transportation, housing
and the development of a strong support system to increase the probability of success. These pre-release
activities will flow into a local system of transition supervision that has been planned before release and
activated upon release. The IITP will provide continuity of services and expectations of offender behaviors as they transition through Oregon’s criminal justice system between state and local custody and, finally, to the community as productive citizens.
Another aspect of the Transition Project process design is the development of links to the community that
allow felons to find and maintain stability in housing, family relations and alcohol and drug abstinence.
With this stability, felons are more likely to also maintain stable employment. The Department would like
to continue developing or expanding transition to ensure that the skills learned from the institution-based
work programs can be carried into community living.
The Department believes that the continuity of treatment and skills learned in the institution can be reinforced in the community as skills are practiced. By incorporating work, education, program and community links into a felon’s transition plan, Oregon will see a reduction in recidivism and will increase the odds
of successful independent living in a community less threatened by crime.
214
Inmate Release Preparedness
South Carolina Department of Corrections
William D. Catoe, Director
The primary mission of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) is public safety. Many
people feel that public safety only involves the secure confinement of inmates, and certainly that is a critical component of what we do. However, the longer-term commitment to public safety also involves
addressing the issues that brought inmates here in the first place. The fact that SCDC releases 11,000
inmates each year indicates that the preparation of inmates for release has a tremendous impact on public
safety. The security provided in the institutions and effective programming are two essential components
of the agency’s commitment to public safety.
With this in mind, SCDC’s special programs director was assigned to head up a task force to review all
inmate programs within the agency. Task force members represented all agency divisions, and about 70
employees either served on the committee, its five sub-committees or as contributors.
The task force assessed current inmate programming and resources within the Department. Using their
expertise, task force members identified additional needs through an analysis of the inmate population and
made recommendations in a thoughtful, far-reaching comprehensive plan, which will be further developed
and implemented over the next three years through strategic planning. In October of last year a number
of the agency’s managers were asked to meet and begin strategic planning for the future of the SCDC.
After reviewing the Mission Statement, Goals and Principles of Employee Conduct, strategic initiatives
were developed into the Strategic Plan. One of the major Strategic Initiatives is to prepare inmates for
institutional adjustment and transition to the community. The recommendations made by last year’s programs task force were incorporated into the Strategic Plan as the foundation for this initiative. Inmate
release preparedness is now being developed as an integral part of how the agency is addressing the issue
of public safety. Through the SCDC Strategic Plan, case management, programs, treatment and services
will address inmate release preparedness in the following stages.
215
Inmate Release Preparedness
SCDC’s Reception and Evaluation Center (R&E) will conduct a thorough, comprehensive needs and risk
assessment on each inmate. Once the assessment is complete, case management will determine the institutional assignment best suited to address the inmate’s needs while controlling risk and addressing security concerns.
After this evaluation and assessment, inmates will be assigned to a program track that meets his or her
needs. Core programs will provide structured programming for all inmates incarcerated in SCDC. These
programs will focus on individual needs and will provide services aimed at the reintegration of inmates
back into the community. Core programs address needs common to all incarcerated offenders such as
basic social skills, cognitive skills, substance abuse education, release planning and preparedness. Release
planning starts at Reception and Evaluation with case management. Before starting a program, inmates
will receive a pre-test/assessment given at the individual’s institution. Inmates will be monitored regularly during their incarceration and a post-test/assessment will be given towards the end of the inmate’s sentence in order to track his or her program participation and to assess the effectiveness of the offered services. Mandatory program tracks will address such areas as sexual assault crimes, violent crimes, social
skills, education, vocational training and substance abuse. Once an inmate has been identified as needing
a certain series of programming, case management will develop and maintain an Individual Treatment Plan
(ITP) on each inmate as they move through the system. Throughout the inmate’s incarceration, each case
will be managed so his or her program track will be followed until release.
Inmates with special needs present numerous challenges to be met through case management. There are
legal and ethical guidelines, mandated by both federal and state regulations, which specify intervention
services to inmates with special needs. Inmates with physical needs including the handicapped, hospice,
geriatric care, the chronically ill, HIV positive, etc. must be treated. Mental health special needs inmates
include, but are not limited to, the mentally ill, sex offenders, developmentally disabled, substance abusers,
security detention and/or segregation inmates, etc. Other special needs inmates fall into categories such
as female offenders, young offenders, long-term offenders and non-English speaking inmates. Inmates
identified through case management as having special needs will be placed in appropriate institutions and
programs.
Through case management and the coordination and development of the aforementioned programs, services and interventions, it is SCDC’s intent to stabilize the inmate population and prepare inmates for successful reentry and adjustment to their home communities. At the very least, the Department plans to
release inmates more capable of being productive, law-abiding citizens than they were when received.
Personnel have already been identified and assigned to organize and coordinate these stages of program
development.
Although the Department’s responsibilities technically end upon release of the inmate, I feel that to adequately address public safety, we have some responsibility in the transition from incarceration to the community. In addition to preparation for release and pre-release planning, post-release assistance, aftercare
and relapse prevention play major roles in reducing recidivism. As a result, SCDC has recently entered
into a Reentry Partnership Initiative with the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services, the Columbia Police Department and the local community to help address these issues. With
technical assistance from the National Institute of Justice, the agency is piloting a project to target inmates
from a designated high-risk community as a special needs group. Through case management, the inmates
will be provided every opportunity to participate in appropriate programs and services to prepare for their
release. At release their cases will be systematically forwarded to the probation agents, parole officers,
216
William D. Catoe
community police officers, community service organizations and agencies, etc. near their residence.
Through this partnership and case management, we hope to lower the rate of recidivism from this highrisk community. As success is measured in the pilot project area, our plan is to identify other high-risk
communities throughout our state where we may develop similar reentry partnership initiatives.
217
218
Operation Turnaround
Virginia Department of Corrections
Ron Angelone, Director
Introduction
Virginia, like many other states, has become increasingly aware of the need to provide post-incarceration
services to inmates being released back into their home communities. The time immediately following
release can be difficult for an ex-offender as he or she attempts to put their lives back together outside of
the highly structured environment of a prison setting. Without adequate job skills or the ability to meet the
necessities of life, an ex-offender stands a much greater chance of returning to a criminal lifestyle.
Virginia’s recidivism rate of nearly 40% creates a tremendous burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth
as costs continue to climb past $21,000 a year to provide room, board and educational services to each
inmate. When added to the higher strain on families and the additional burden placed on public social services, it becomes clear a concerted effort must be launched to help ex-offenders become productive members of communities across the Commonwealth.
To help bridge the gap between the time of release and the time that an ex-offender can fully function in
society, the Commonwealth has turned to a coalition made up of state agencies and the faith community.
The program is called Operation Turnaround.
The Program
Designed to combat a stubborn pattern of recidivism, Operation Turnaround builds on the collaborative
effort of agencies reporting to the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety: Department of Corrections, the
Virginia Parole Board, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Department of Correctional Education.
The agencies join the faith, business, education and human resource communities throughout the
219
Operation Turnaround
Commonwealth. All the participating agencies and programs work together to provide mentoring for the
ex-offender and to create a statewide system of services to assist in the reintegration of the offender back
into the community.
With Operation Turnaround, the ex-offender will have a comprehensive support system – a network of
regional and local people who will "walk along side of, provide guidance to and be a friend to…" the participants in the program and their families as they work to re-establish normal patterns of life.
While Operation Turnaround is aimed at both juvenile and adult ex-offenders, the following description
will focus primarily on those leaving adult correctional facilities. In the early stages of development, the
program is currently being piloted in Portsmouth, Virginia, a metropolitan area in the Tidewater portion of
the state.
Program Design
The Office of the Secretary of Public Safety provides the primary leadership for this project. The oversight committee responsible for the overall design and monitoring of the program consists of representatives of the state agencies involved, and members of the faith, business and service provider communities.
The primary focus for services to the ex-offender and his or her family will be the Regional Resource
Center. The resource center will act as the regional administrative coordinator for the project and will
serve as the primary marketing and public relations resource for the program. In addition, each resource
center will have an advisory board made up of key community and civic leaders, representatives of service providers, volunteers and other interested citizens.
Initial screening will be completed at one of a number of sites. The intent is to recognize the needs of the
individual to provide a profile that will define which services will be needed in the community. Some of
those needs include:
• Jobs
• Clothes
• Recreation
• Career Development Awareness
• Vocational/Technical and GED Programs
• Family Care and Counseling
• Housing
• Transportation
• Employment Skills
• Reading & Academic Skills
• Character and Moral Development
• Victim Awareness/Accountability
Once the initial assessment is complete, each person then receives help in the development of a plan of
action or a "life plan" that will facilitate successful reintegration back to the community and that will fulfill the client’s goals for life.
Initially, the client will be provided information on, "How to Get Started" and "How to Utilize the
Resources Available." It is only after this initial assessment and orientation is complete that the person
returns to the resource center where the plan will actually begin to take shape. In some cases this is done
in the prison setting before the person is released; in others, the evaluation is completed at one of the sponsoring churches or in the office of one of the service providers.
Once the plan is received at the resource center, the client is teamed with a structure/curriculum advisor at
220
Ron Angelone
the center who will be responsible for assisting the client in:
• Higher Education Goals
• Literacy Training
• Vocational/Technical Training
• GED
• Entrepreneurial Training
• Legal Concerns
• Employment Opportunities
• Tutoring
In addition, the client is assigned a mentor who is asked to commit to at least a one-year partnership with
the client. The mentor becomes a key element in working with the client, providing emotional support and
assisting the client in making contact with the various resources within the community that will meet the
needs identified during the initial assessment.
Mentoring extends beyond simply help in finding a job or other services needed in the community. The
mentor becomes a friend to be counted upon when the going gets tough. It is this person the client will
turn to when questions or temptations arise which would lead the individual back toward a criminal
lifestyle.
Mentors are drawn primarily from the faith community. Training is provided by state agencies involved
in the program and by other service providers. The primary focus of the training is to provide the mentor
with the skills to recognize needs as they arise and to identify sources of help to meet the need. Training
is also provided in recognizing behavioral patterns that might lead to trouble and how best to handle them.
The mentor always has a support system within the state agencies and other service providers to which he
or she can turn with questions, concerns or when they simply need someone to listen.
Conclusion
Since its inception several months ago, 75 ex-offenders have become involved in Operation Turnaround
and have become actively involved in all aspects of the program. Over 130 volunteers have entered the
mentoring program, moving toward the target of a 2 to 1 ratio of mentors to clients. Anecdotal reports
from the field indicate that the intent of the program to provide the support an individual needs is meeting
the expectations of the oversight committee and all involved in the program.
A more rigorous evaluation process is currently being developed to measure whether this program truly
does have an impact on recidivism. The evaluation will track the individual from release and through the
three years following release. These figures will be compared to figures for the same three-year period of
those who choose not to enter the program.
Those involved in the planning and monitoring of Operation Turnaround all describe it as an evolving program. Often the best "lessons learned" are those that come from the actual implementation of a program
design. Program elements that show great promise are kept, while those that absorb resources but are not
seen as productive are either modified or removed from the program design.
The current plan is to expand beyond the Portsmouth area to other locations throughout the state as quickly as resources and interest allow. There is no doubt that there is a crying need to slow the cycle of persons reentering our juvenile and adult correctional facilities. Operation Turnaround is emerging as one of
the most promising solutions to that problem.
221
222
Risk Management and Transition Program
Washington Department of Corrections
Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary
The Risk Management and Transition program addresses the release of all high-risk offenders. Offenders
defined as high risk include all sex offenders with a Level III release notification (high risk to the community), offenders referred for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator or seriously mentally ill,
dangerously mentally ill offenders and developmentally disabled offenders. The program is designed to
target offenders 12 months from their estimated release date, engaging Department of Corrections staff and
community partners in the transition release of offenders to minimize the risk to the community and provide a comprehensive accountability plan for the offender. The release plan may include components such
as residence, supervision, therapy, employment, medication, finances, community support and community prohibitions.
Risk management specialists have been hired both in the institutions and the field to work with the offender and case managers to put together a plan that addresses the risk areas that would endanger the community and the offender. This is done by utilizing existing resources the offender may already have in conjunction with community partnerships in existence such as the Department of Social and Health Services
(DSHS), mental health, law enforcement and victim advocacy programs. In addition, the specialists will
be working to build community guardianships with neighborhood groups that may include citizens,
employers, housing, victims and fraternal organizations, etc.
Currently, the greatest challenge to this team is finding housing for high-risk sex offenders and the placement difficulties encountered for the mentally ill population. The implementation of House Bill 5011
addressing the Dangerously Mentally Ill began in March 2000, but the agency has already begun to work
with some of this population and has had great cooperation with community-designated mental health
providers.
223
Risk Management and Transition Program
The staff in the institutions will be working with the offenders before release to put together relapse prevention plans that will identify high-risk behaviors and the interventions needed to stop that behavior.
These plans will be shared with the community teams as they work with the offender to develop a transition plan. The community specialists will work in groups and one-on-one with these offenders in the communities to follow through on their relapse prevention plans.
224
Neighborhood Based Supervision
The Washington State Department of Corrections in Spokane has developed and implemented a program
called Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS). NBS provides Community Corrections Officers (CCOs)
the opportunity to move from bureaucratic settings and work directly within the community. They share
office space with local police officers and other shareholders, along with neighborhood volunteers housed
at Community Oriented Policing Substations (COPS). Being located in the neighborhood’s COPS Shop
enables the CCOs to work cooperatively with police officers and community members, while supervising
offenders on their caseloads who live in the neighborhoods.
History of the NBS Program
The creation of NBS is closely tied to the development of COPS Shops in Spokane. The COPS program
was the direct result of a 1991 tragedy in which two young girls were abducted from their West Central
Spokane neighborhood. One girl was found dead; the other has never been found. The resulting community planning effort, which involved residents, police and local agencies, culminated in the establishment of the COPS West facility. The residents of the West Central neighborhood renovated a donated
building, established a governing board and kept the center open on a daily basis under the operation of
community volunteers. NBS was established in 1993 with the placement of two CCOs housed at the
COPS West facility. Subsequently, two CCOs were placed at each of the four COPS Shops in the Spokane
area. The sites are COPS NE (northeast neighborhood in Spokane), COPS East Central (East Central
neighborhood), and TOP COPS (located in downtown Spokane). COPS West is also the prototype for
other operating or planned COPS Shops. In each case, local residents took a more active role in addressing and preventing crime within their communities.
225
Neighborhood Based Supervision
Unique Character of the NBS Program
The NBS provides a new method for accomplishing the duties assigned to CCOs. While they continue to
be responsible for supervising offenders, the definition of client broadens to include offenders, their families and the neighborhood at large. Offenders are more "visible" under NBS and CCOs are familiar with
their immediate environment. More direct contact between CCOs and offenders is the result, and CCOs
feel they are able to respond more quickly and proactively with their clients. This aspect of community
involvement has led to the CCOs handling adjusted caseloads to accommodate neighborhood interaction.
A unique element of this program is the increased involvement and coordination taking place at the local
COPS Shops. Volunteers and local residents exchange offender-related information with the CCOs and
are beginning to assist the officers in holding the offenders accountable for their behavior. Residents and
businesses feel empowered as they experience more control within their neighborhoods. Evidence of
enhanced safety and security includes a 35% reduction in burglaries in the West Central neighborhood
since the beginning of COPS West and NBS.
NBS CCOs have help implement several uniquely tailored programs and services in specific communities.
At one location, the CCOs assisted local hotel and motel managers in developing a notification system to
inform one another of patrons who were conducting illegal activities within their establishments. Others
are organizing meetings to help the community develop more diverse racial and ethnic representations at
the COPS Shop. Anther helped the local COPS Shop secure $4,000 worth of radio dispatch equipment
and portable radios. CCOs have developed various programs. One deals with the emergence of local street
gangs and another uses ex-offenders to conduct educational presentations with local youth. Currently in
the downtown area, the COPS Shops, neighbors, businesses and NBS CCOs are renovating buildings,
installing security cameras and improving lighting with the intention of moving illegal activity out of the
area.
With each passing month, the Department’s partnership with the community is becoming more of a reality. Under NBS, the agency is establishing a relationship with community members based on trust, respect
and mutual understanding. This program also demonstrates the Department’s commitment to its value
statement "Working Together for SAFE Communities."
Considerations in establishing NBS-type programs
There are a number of different policy considerations when starting this type of program. Administrators
must:
• Allow CCOs the flexibility to develop programs that fit the particular needs of each neighborhood/community
• Be willing to meet the challenge of providing an atmosphere where CCOs are encouraged to be creative,
and work with the community and other shareholders in developing programs
• Be willing to allow CCOs the time to develop programs within the neighborhoods. This requires clarification between caseload supervision (traditional caseload work) and community involvement (non-traditional). Examples would be developing joint programs, attending community/board meetings, interactions with the community members, etc.
• Be willing to delegate decision-making to the CCO level so staff is empowered and the community members can see that the agency is especially interested in working with them in a true partnership
• Provide the technical and administrative support the outstations need. This would include
226
Joseph D. Lehman
equipment/communications that are needed for the officers to perform their day-to-day work (computers,
cellular phones, printers, dictation equipment, vehicle, etc.)
• Be selective in choosing staff to work in neighborhood partnerships. Staff need the skills to work independently in the community and with the shareholders. In addition, they should be individuals who welcome the challenge of devising new approaches to performing their duties and who are not fearful of doing
things in a different manner from what has been done traditionally.
Neighborhood-based supervision offers a window of opportunity for law enforcement, Departments of
Corrections and the community to join forces in true partnerships. The ever-present concerns of crime and
community protection are issues that transcend simplistic solutions. We can ill afford to return to the days
where isolation and fear polarize our citizens. Together we can cross the bridge where community really
does mean all of us.
227
228
Chapter 8
Technological
Advances
229
230
Distance Probation/Parole Supervision In Alaska
Alaska Department of Corrections
Margaret M. Pugh, Commissioner
Partnerships and technology are paving the way for increasing community safety in rural areas of Alaska.
Relatively low-tech, low-cost video links between a probation/parole office and a village provide the officer and the offender the opportunity to communicate more frequently and involves the community in a collaborative relationship in observing and influencing the offender’s behavior.
Alaska’s vast geography, cultural diversity and extreme climate present ongoing challenges for the delivery of essential public services. The challenges are not unique to corrections; education, clean water,
power sources, public health and emergency medical services, fire protection, law enforcement – and any
number of other services are expensive, if possible to provide at all.
The Alaska Department of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections is charged with protecting the
public by effective supervision of all persons on probation or parole. Currently, the number of active cases
is approximately 4,500 – up from the previous year by 6% - and the projection is for the caseloads to continue to grow. As the growth trend represents an increased demand for services, the further backdrop
includes, at once:
• Fiscal constraints;
• Demand for longer and stronger sentences, including longer periods of community supervision with more
stringent conditions of release; and,
• Demand for equitable services for rural and bush Alaskans, specifically for Native Alaskans who represent a disproportionate percentage of probationers and parolees.
Probation/parole offices are located in 13 population centers throughout the state, and officers travel to villages on a scheduled basis to supervise offenders. Supervision between site visits is often constrained by
any number of factors, including lack of telephone access or a lack of collateral community contacts –
231
Distance Probation/Parole Supervision in Alaska
including local law enforcement. In addition to the problems associated with supervision, treatment services are almost certainly unavailable in small, distant locations. It follows then, that offenders who score
in higher risk categories – those who must be supervised more closely and who may be required to participate in sex offender or substance abuse treatment - may not be allowed to return to their home villages.
Instead, the offender may be required to live and work in a population center where an officer can more
closely supervise behavior. This practice is disruptive to families and often difficult for the offender, not
just due to lack of family support, but due to cultural and lifestyle differences. For example, an offender
who has lived a subsistence lifestyle in rural or bush Alaska and for whom English is a second language,
may have difficulty finding employment, housing or a support system in an urban center.
Probation/parole officers in Alaska have long relied upon relationships with responsible persons in a community for input regarding an offender’s behavior. The Department has provided "safety net" training in
several communities. Sex offenders are registered before release from prison, and an on-line registry is
maintained. These efforts are not enough.
The Division of Community Corrections is involved in a major initiative to focus on offender accountability and community safety, based on the principles of community justice. Victim advisory committees
are being established locally in many locations. Partnerships with community councils and community
policing groups in urban Anchorage are showing results with Community-based probation in urban areas.
Victim impact classes and other cognitive programs are expanding. The Division is working with the court
system to further alternative sentencing practices through the use of specialized courts – drug courts and
mental health courts. It was within that framework that the Division began this year to pilot a project to
test the efficacy of video links between the probation/parole offices and outlying villages.
To date, two rural communities in opposite ends of the state are linked to the nearest probation office and
are showing promise in furthering the goals of increasing community safety, holding offenders accountable and returning more offenders to their home communities.
Hoonah
There are ten offenders on probation/parole supervision currently living in Hoonah - a small Tlinget Indian
community in Southeast Alaska, not too far from the capital city of Juneau, where there is a probation
office. There are regularly scheduled ferry and air taxi services running between the two towns, however; there is no road access and travel to and from Hoonah is expensive for offenders or officers. Some outpatient substance abuse counseling services are available in Hoonah. The Division of Community
Corrections spent approximately $600 to purchase and install video equipment in the Hoonah Police
Department to link it with the Juneau Probation Office. Offenders report to the police department to check
in with the Juneau-based Probation Officer. This has not only ensured that local police officers are
informed of conditions of release of offenders, but has furthered the goals of community justice by involving more members of the community in holding the offender accountable. The project has been on line
for eight months.
Hooper Bay
There are 25 offenders on supervision in the small Yupik Eskimo village of Hooper Bay that is perched,
literally, on the edge of the Bering Sea. Access is by air only, and the nearest probation/parole office is in
Bethel, Alaska, some 150 air miles away. Needless to say, flights are expensive. Hooper Bay does not
232
Margaret M. Pugh
have a local police department. There is a Village Public Safety Officer. The Division of Community
Corrections spent approximately $600 to purchase and install video equipment in the office of the Yukon
Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC) to link it with the Bethel Probation Office. The offender must
report to the YKHC office to check in with the probation officer. This arrangement allows community
members, other than law enforcement, to be informed of and involved in the supervision of the offender
in the community. The project has just gone on line.
Galena and St. Paul Island
Equipment is available and pending shipment to Galena, an Athabascan Indian community in the interior
of Alaska, served by the Fairbanks Probation Office and St. Paul Island, a small Aleut village way out on
the Aleutian Island Chain, served by the Kodiak Probation Office.
Partnerships
Collaboration is more than cooperation – it involves working together in an atmosphere of commitment to
a project or goals and requires a willingness to meet the needs of each participant. The agency desiring
partnerships with communities for probation and parole supervision must be ready to collaborate – and that
means being flexible, which is not always the first avenue of choice in a bureaucracy. Each community
is different, with different strengths and needs. Thus, there is no one formula for partnerships. The agency
must become knowledgeable about those strengths and needs and must, at all times, be sensitive to and
respectful of cultural and political influences.
The Future
The future for partnerships and technology in the distance delivery of probation services and thus public
protection, in a cost-effective manner, is very bright. It is not difficult to envision a time when most, if not
all, communities are connected to probation offices via video. Nor is it difficult to envision that treatment
services may be offered through the link. Already, the Department of Corrections’ Telepsychiatry Project
uses the same video equipment described in this document for physicians and psychiatrists in Anchorage
to have visual contact with the 15 correctional centers around the state. Teleconferencing allows for physical or mental health assessments of offenders, saving money on both travel and time as well as protecting
the emotional well being of the offender.
233
234
GPS is Revolutionizing Electronic Monitoring
Florida Department of Corrections
Michael W. Moore, Secretary
The Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) has taken one small step for electronic monitoring and one
giant leap for crime victims through its revolutionary use of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) to track
offenders on community supervision more closely than ever before.
"I can tell you what street they’re on anywhere in the state in close to real time," said Ron Mercer, a
Correctional Program Administrator in Tallahassee who has been with the GPS program from its start in
January 1997. "Prior to GPS, the probation officer had no way of providing early warnings to victims, making certain areas off limits, sending instructions to the offender (via the personal tracking device) regarding violations or just requiring the offender to call the probation office. With GPS, everything is archived,
so if you need to know an offender’s whereabouts in the past, that information is readily available. The bottom line is that offenders can no longer lie about their movements in the community without their probation officer knowing it."
In January 1997 the FDOC began a pilot project using the GPS system to track the movement and location
of offenders in close to "real time," 24 hours a day, constantly relaying information to the probation officer. This differs from traditional electronic monitoring using radio frequency (RF), which only monitors
the offender's presence or absence from his or her home and is often used to enforce curfews and home
confinement. The pilot program was conducted at probation offices in Tampa and Clearwater, and its success is due primarily to the dedicated staff in those offices.
How GPS Works
GPS is a network of satellites used by the U.S. Department of Defense to pinpoint targets and guide bombs.
It has been used for everything from helping hikers find their way through the woods to guiding law
235
GPS is Revolutionizing Electronic Monitoring
enforcement to a stolen vehicle. Today, tracking offenders, particularly sex offenders and domestic violence offenders living in the community, has proven to be a useful application of the technology. There are
24 satellites in the GPS system, with six in view at all times from which the offender can receive signals,
though only four are necessary.
Offenders wear a pager-size unit strapped to the ankle and carry a lunchbox-size personal tracking device
(PTD) to complete the linkup to the GPS. Officers can send messages to the offender via the PTD, which
has an LED display area for text. If an offender is in an exclusion zone, for example, the officer can contact him or her immediately to leave that zone. An officer can follow the track of that offender on a computer screen during the course of his or her day. Administrators in Tallahassee and others can also track
any offender statewide via the Internet home page of the GPS company with whom they contract.
One of the most important benefits of satellite tracking is the additional surveillance and increased protection it offers to crime victims. For instance, when the court orders a sex offender to have no contact with
the victim, exclusionary boundaries can be set at an appropriate distance around the victim's residence and
place of employment. If the perimeters are broken, an early warning can be sent to the victim. The additional features of inclusionary and exclusionary boundaries, two-way communication with the victim or
the offender, exact location mapping for archive retrieval and immediate tamper notification makes GPS
an ideal surveillance tool for community corrections professionals.
Taking GPS for a Test Drive
The chief judge of the First Judicial Circuit decided to test GPS before requiring it as part of some "house
arrest" sentences. According to a statewide article distributed by the Associated Press, the judge and two
physician friends wrapped this device in lead suits used by x-ray technicians. The judge then went to a
movie theater that had been designated as off-limits for the test and left a note at the box office that read,
"The mouse was here." Four minutes later, a probation officer signed the note and added, "So was the
smart cat. Busted!" The judge wore the unit for five days trying to outsmart the system before finally giving up. He indicated that it appeared to be the "ultimate means of protecting the community."
GPS is currently operating in 18 of the 20 probation circuits in Florida. The system works so well tracking "house arrest" offenders that a two-month pilot was conducted on inmates at the Tampa Work Release
Center with positive results. Future plans being considered include using the GPS system on inmates who
work in the community, but still live at a residential correctional facility.
Survey Says…
In December 1999, a survey was conducted of more than 90% of Florida's correctional probation officers
and their supervisors who use GPS system and RF forms of electronic monitoring to keep track of offenders. Each respondent had to have at least one offender on GPS and RF. The purpose of the survey was to
determine the effectiveness of GPS compared to RF. The cost per day to place an offender on GPS is $9.26,
compared to $3.00 per day for RF.
An RF system operates as more of a curfew enforcement tool. A boundary is established when the unit is
installed at an offender’s residence. If the offender leaves prior to his or her scheduled departure time or
returns after curfew, an alert will be sent. RF is not designed to provide information about where these
offenders were during the approved period of absence from their residences.
236
Michael W. Moore
It should be noted that officers say that using GPS for certain types of offenses, such as drug crimes, is a
waste of time and money because the offender could be using narcotics in his or her own home and GPS
would have no way of indicating that a violation had occurred. Officers indicate that RF would be preferable in cases such as drug and property crimes, and that GPS would be more useful for violent and sex
offenders.
GPS is Preferred
Of the 107 correctional probation officers surveyed, 63% of respondents said GPS should be used more
often than RF (11%) or equal units of each (26%). GPS's main attraction is its "ability to track them 24/7"
(24 hours a day, seven days a week). “The old system (RF) just tells you they left home, not where they
went," according to one respondent. Nearly 83% of the officers surveyed see a need for more GPS units
in their circuits or offices. The majority of respondents think that GPS does a better job than RF at preventing new offenses (75%), at alerting to potential criminal behavior (81%) and of being able to find an
offender (88.7%).
When asked to identify an ideal offender on whom GPS would work most effectively, most respondents
said GPS would work best on males who are 25 years old or older with violent or sex offenses. The
response was similar for RF offenders, with males age 25 and older considered ideal candidates, but for
non-violent (property and drug) offenses. The majority of respondents (82.9%) are either satisfied or very
satisfied with the call monitoring center staff and their responses to officers’questions. Some of the major
problems associated with the use of GPS are losing GPS signal due to such things as battery failure, going
inside buildings which may block satellite signals to the GPS receiver and equipment failure. After some
trial and error, the department is now using lithium ion batteries that have been tested to last up to 23 hours,
and recharge in half the time it took previously tested batteries.
Being able to track offenders and inmates as they move about in the community and setting off-limit areas
is revolutionizing community supervision. As the FDOC continues to leap into the 21st century, our plans
are to continue to embrace the new technologies being created to make crime victims safer and offenders
more accountable for their actions.
237
238
GPS: The Next Level of Monitoring
Michigan Department of Corrections
When Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring systems were introduced about 15 years ago, it was commonly
expected they would allow tracking offender movements throughout the community. With the introduction of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, technology may now be able to live up to those early
expectations.
The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) has operated a RF monitoring system for the past 14
years. From the beginning, the Department has managed its own monitoring center. There are now nearly 3,000 prisoners, parolees and probationers on the system. With over 100,000 offenders having been
supervised on the system, the Department has accumulated extensive experience and knowledge in this
area. This provides a solid base from which to examine whether GPS is the next level of monitoring. The
MDOC is conducting a pilot study to determine if GPS monitoring is a viable tool for supervising offenders in the community, and what resources and procedures would be needed to build an effective program.
Radio Frequency vs. Global Positioning System
Standard RF electronic monitoring equipment consists of a transmitter attached to an offender’s leg, a
receiver connected to a telephone line and a central computer. Signals are sent from the transmitter to the
receiver. The receiver processes the signal and communicates with the central monitoring computer which
contains the scheduling information. This type of system can determine if the offender is home (within
range), when they leave and return and if the equipment has been tampered with.
GPS systems have essentially the same equipment. However, the receiver is portable and communicates
with the central computer by cellular telephone. This type of system can determine where an offender is
in the community 24-hours-a-day, as well as the direction and speed they are moving. It can send an alarm
239
GPS: The Next Level of Monitoring
if the offender is in an area where they are not allowed (exclusion zone), or if they leave an area in which
they must stay (inclusion zone). These zones can be set for a minimum radius of 300 feet.
GPS Operation
GPS is a collection of 24 NAVSTAR satellites owned by the U.S. Government. These satellites orbit
11,000 miles above the earth, constantly transmitting the precise time and their position in space. GPS
receivers use triangulation of signals from at least three to four satellites to determine the receiver’s precise location, speed and direction of movement. This messaging feature is important in resolving problems when an offender is away from a telephone.
GPS Receiver
The central monitoring computers are usually located at the manufacturer’s site and are accessed through
a secure Internet connection. A local workstation, usually located at the office supervising the offenders,
requires a Pentium 166+ processor, Windows 95 or NT, 32 MB of RAM and a 28.8k modem. Some companies do not require any software on the server. Those that do require less than 500 MB of hard drive
space. The workstation is used to enroll offenders and information into the system. The workstation is
also used to display a map showing the offender’s movements in the community, and may show when the
receiver is in the charger, at rest or has lost the GPS signal.
System Limitations
The GPS signal cannot be transmitted through dense buildings. If an offender lives or works in the lower
levels of a multi-story concrete and steel structure, the signal is lost and the location will not be known.
The receiver can be placed in a window to allow it to "see" enough satellites to establish its position, but
this may not always be possible. One solution would be to require the receiver be placed in the charger.
With a land-based telephone line attached to the charger, it would then function as a normal RF monitoring unit and the offender would have to stay within range of the receiver. Another solution would be to
simply prohibit residence or employment at locations where the equipment will not work.
The final limitation is the issue of offender participation. Unlike conventional RF monitoring, field staff
cannot just install the equipment on the offender and send them on their way. The offender must remember to carry a heavy piece of equipment in a manner so that signals are not blocked; they must place it in
the charger upon returning home or when a "low battery power" message is received; and they must take
it outside occasionally to reacquire a GPS signal.
Michigan Pilot
In January of 2000, the MDOC began a pilot study of the GPS program. The pilot will evaluate the current equipment on the market, determine procedures and resources required for this type of system and
assess the effectiveness of the system in supervising offenders. The pilot study is being conducted on
parolees in Grand Rapids. The parolees selected for this pilot are sex offenders, assaultive offenders, those
on maximum supervision or those who have a history of location violations connected to their crime.
The pilot is being conducted in two phases. Phase I consists of an implementation study to identify the
issues involved in utilizing GPS. Phase II will focus on outcome measures to determine the further use of
240
Bill Martin
GPS and to develop an implementation strategy. Some of the issues this study will address are: size of a
manageable GPS caseload, additional tasks required of a GPS agent, appropriate length of time on the system and offender or offense characteristics that lend themselves to GPS supervision.
Cost Factors and Expectations
The equipment and monitoring services are provided on a lease basis, with prices in the $11 to $20 perday range. This is five to six times the price of RF monitoring. A major portion of this cost is due to telephone charges. Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD), which transmits data more economically, should
reduce these costs as it becomes available in more areas of the country. Technological improvements and
mass production should eventually decrease equipment costs.
Improvements in battery life and more efficient communications have been made in recent months, and
more improvements are sure to follow. Smaller receiver units are being tested, which may eventually
reduce the size of the receiver to that of a common pager. At least one company plans to add a remote
alcohol testing device and possibly a microphone and video camera to the charging unit. Other land-based
monitoring systems that use radio towers to fix offenders locations are being developed. These would
potentially reduce the GPS signal loss inside a dense building.
Fifteen years ago many people expressed some of the same reservations concerning RF systems that are
now being raised about GPS monitoring. The fact that there are over 50,000 offenders on RF monitoring
in this country today indicates that it is now an accepted technology in the correctional field. That acceptance did not come easily. It required years for refining the technology and the programs and procedures
surrounding that technology. Acceptance of GPS as the next level of monitoring may follow a similar
path.
241
242
Informational Kiosks in Prison Facilities
New Jersey Department of Corrections
The Current Process
The New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) supports an institutional offender population of
approximately 25,000 inmates. Upon entry into a New Jersey correctional facility, each inmate has a financial account created in which funds they receive from outside sources (i.e. family), as well as monies
earned by working in their institution, are deposited. These funds are assessed to pay various debts (i.e.
child support, victim compensation, etc.); remaining funds can be used to purchase various approved items
in the prison commissary. For this system to work, inmates must be aware of their account balances so
they may effectively budget their money. As a result, the business office in each prison facility is required
to compile, print and distribute an account statement for each inmate after the monthly payroll.
The Problem
One of the major drawbacks to this current manual process is the amount of labor required to perform this
task. Even with a conservative estimate of two minutes to compile, print and distribute each inmate report,
over 833 person hours must be devoted to this task per month in order to satisfy all 25,000 inmates. Based
on the average employee’s salary, this single task is estimated to cost the NJDOC in excess of $21,500 per
month, or $258,000 per year.
A Better Way
The NJDOC Office of Information Technology (OIT) believes there is a better way to provide the necessary account information to inmates while simultaneously making better use of our resources. One solution is to strategically place throughout the institutions computerized kiosks that are networked directly to
243
the Correctional Management Information System (CMIS).
Upon entry to the NJDOC system, all inmates have a digital image captured and an ID card created. The
ID contains the digital image, the inmate’s number and a bar code for use with scanners. In practice, an
inmate would first swipe his ID card through a bar code reader housed in the kiosk (similar to that in an
ATM). Next, he would enter a personal identification number (PIN) assigned to him for use in the prison
phone system. The inmate could then access such personal information as his sentence max date, trust
account balance, transaction records or any other information deemed appropriate by the Department,
without the need for DOC staff to manually provide the report. Inmates would utilize touch screen technology to navigate the kiosk system, select desired information, and print written reports that would be
deposited in a lower bin for removal. An electronic flag, which was set if the data were printed, would
limit the frequency of printing reports to once per month. However, the data could be viewed at any time.
Obviously, there are many issues that need to be addressed before a system of this type can be implemented.
Security
In order for this system to be used in a production environment, inmate access must be severely limited to
specific information determined to be appropriate by the Department. There must be absolutely no way
that an inmate can use the kiosk device to hack into other areas of the system, or view or alter confidential information housed on NJDOC networks. Inmate input must be very limited; thus a touch screen
would be preferred as it eliminates many security problems associated with a traditional PC/mouse/keyboard system. A touch screen limits input to only the selections that are given on the display. In addition,
firewalls must exist and software must be developed so that risks to systems, data integrity and confidentiality would not be compromised.
Durability
A kiosk must be able to withstand the rigors associated with the high-risk prison environment, otherwise
the labor and costs associated with constant repair and replacement will quickly outweigh any benefits.
For example, systems must be bolted to the floor so they cannot be overturned. They must be constructed
of materials that are extremely durable so they can’t be destroyed. Display screens must be able to withstand significant impact without shattering, as broken glass becomes a dangerous weapon. All kiosk system components (CPU, printer, card scanner, touch screen, cabinet, etc) must be protected and rendered
impervious to liquids such as spilled drinks, chemicals or other contaminants. Placement of the system
should be in areas that are well supervised to minimize the possibility of inmate destruction.
Research
The Department must perform extensive research of its own business processes and workflow to determine the ramifications of a kiosk implementation. An obvious question is what other business processes
will be affected or eliminated as a result of this implementation? Benchmarking should also be conducted to determine if any other prison facilities have utilized this technology. Successes as well as failures
need to be factored into the final decision. For example, the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre
in Sydney, Australia successfully uses information kiosks in their maximum-security facility to provide
new inmates with information on jail regulations and other aspects of prison life, including what they do,
eat and wear while incarcerated.
244
Jack Terhune
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Vendors must be approached with system specifications and requirements, and must produce estimates of
what the system will cost based on the size and extent of the implementation. Final costs, as well as any
ongoing license or maintenance costs, must be included in a comparison with current manual process costs
to determine when the break-even point will be attained.
Processes
All processes and operating procedures for utilizing the new system must be developed. This includes
training of staff and inmates on how the kiosks operate. Inmates must also be advised of how often they
can access data, print reports and report discrepancies. Other processes include the development of system maintenance schedules, as well as backup processes if the system goes down.
Testing
Once prototype kiosks have been constructed and purchased, a pilot of the new system should be performed for a predetermined period of time in one or two facilities. This will enable staff to test on a manageable scale various aspects of the new system while addressing any bugs, enhancements or other problems that may arise. At the end of the pilot, a determination should be made as to whether the system performed successfully, and if expansion to other facilities would be beneficial.
Follow up
Once a kiosk system is implemented, the Department should conduct regular assessments to determine if
it is actually performing as planned and is living up to expectations. The discoveries gleaned from these
control assessments should feed back into any system or process modifications in order to continually
refine performance.
The Next Step
The New Jersey Department of Corrections Office of Information Technology is currently involved in the
latter stages of a major information technology (IT) replacement project. Three short years ago, staff discovered that the 14 IBM System 36 computer systems that were in place in each of our correctional institutions were not Y2K compliant. A well known IT consulting group was hired to perform a system
replacement assessment. This consultant determined that a total replacement of the IBM systems with a
state-of-the-art-client server system addressing similar functionality would be a five-year project.
Unfortunately, the impending Y2K deadline gave the Department no choice but to attempt this replacement in less than two years. Eighteen months and over $28 million dollars later, the NJDOC now has a
new Corrections Management Information System (CMIS) in production.
As one can imagine, completing an IT project of this magnitude in a third of the projected timeframe has
pushed the resolution of many system issues that would normally be resolved in the pilot phase to the production phase. As a result, the NJDOC-OIT is at present fully involved addressing system bugs, enhancements, refinements and other issues in an effort to support what is one of the most technologically
advanced correctional information systems in the country. Once these day-to-day business issues are
245
addressed and the CMIS system is fully stabilized, the NJDOC plans to pursue such new initiatives as the
use of kiosks in prison facilities.
246
Chapter 9
Offender Behavior
and Accountability
247
248
Progressive Reintegration Opportunity Pro-Unit
Colorado Department of Corrections
John W. Suthers, Executive Director
Background
Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) is the maximum administrative segregation facility for the State of
Colorado. CSP opened in August of 1993 to house 504 of the state’s most violent, predatory and unpredictable inmates. The mission of CSP is to:
• Preserve order in all other Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities by the safe and humane management of the highest risk inmates in the DOC
• Change inmate conduct through behavior-driven programs which facilitate their reintegration into less
secure environments
• Develop, support and empower professional correctional staff to manage high-risk inmates and to
become members of an effective team through intensive training and mentoring programs
To fulfill its mission, the CSP management team developed the Quality of Life Behavioral Modification
Program which operates as a stratified incentive program with increased privileges and responsibilities
associated with each level. Inmates are held accountable for irresponsible behavior and recognized for
appropriate, responsible behavior. This behavioral modification program provides an immediate response
to inappropriate inmate behavior while providing access to needed cognitive restructuring programs.
Initially, the Quality of Life program consisted of three levels, with Level-One status being the most
restrictive.
In the spring of 1996, CSP began construction of a 252-bed expansion unit. Contrary to trends across the
country to not expose "supermax" inmates to significant programming, the DOC and state legislators
tasked and provided support to CSP for the development of a transitional release program from administrative segregation to general population within a level-five facility. The greatest challenge then was to
249
construct and present an innovative program that would be relevant, effective and safe in progressing highrisk inmates to the general population. The program, known as the Progressive Reintegration Opportunity
(PRO) Unit, began operation in January of 1998.
CSP had been extremely successful in managing its population with the stratified incentive behavioral
modification program with only three levels. The CSP management team determined to provide a continuation of the current program to include levels four and five for the transitional unit. The additional levels would provide a continuum of progression for inmate movement, an objective evaluation of the
inmates’ behavior in a controlled setting and allow inmates to develop the skills necessary to function
within a prison population.
Within the framework established, CSP staff realized a need to facilitate a paradigm shift in managing
these types of inmates. The challenge presented was to develop an intensive transitional program within
the context of the inherent risks associated with such innovative programming in a level-five facility. The
inmate population also needed to realize the significance of the opportunity to progress from CSP. Not
only was a "light at the end of the tunnel" established, but also that the inmates needed to genuinely prepare themselves for participation in intensive, challenging and confrontational group activities. CSP staff
also realized that cognitive restructuring programs would need to be developed that would lessen the rate
of recidivism resulting from gang activity, escapes, assaultive behaviors and excessive disciplinary violations.
An activation team was created to assist in the development of program design, mission, policy, procedures and program curriculum. These individuals were given the latitude to "step out of box" in the preparation of innovative approaches. Staff were challenged to support the integrity of security and safety measures within the PRO Unit while ensuring an atmosphere conducive to program participation.
The physical structure of CSP allowed for the PRO Unit to be contained in one segment of the facility
which minimizes the risk and isolates the PRO Unit for immediate emergency response if needed. The
PRO Unit comprises eight day halls each containing 15 to 16 cells on two tiers for a total capacity of 126
inmates. Immediately adjacent to the living unit are the classroom and the gymnasium areas, which are
secured from the remainder of the facility.
Implementation
The PRO Unit was purposely designed so that no inmate can complete the program by remaining isolated
and avoiding confrontational situations such as those they may face in general population. To be granted
placement in the PRO Unit, each inmate must pass through a stringent approval process. The following
criteria were implemented for consideration of placement into the PRO Unit.
Inmate eligibility begins with the successful completion of Quality of Life Level Three. Inmates must
have demonstrated acceptable behavior for designated periods of time and complete the individual program plan designed by their case manager. An interview with their case manager and the case manager
supervisor will determine if the inmate will be submitted to the facility classification committee for placement into the PRO Unit. Inmates are submitted for possible transfer to the transition program by the
assigned case manager using the following guidelines:
250
John W. Suthers
• The inmate has not been convicted of any Class I disciplinary violations in the past 12 months or Class
II disciplinary violations in the past three to six months
• The inmate has actively participated in facility programs as directed by the case manager
• The inmate has successfully maintained Level III status for a minimum of three consecutive months
The classification committee, consisting of the programs manager, case management supervisor, programs
supervisor, case managers, mental health staff, security threat group coordinator, unit supervisors and line
staff consider the original reason for placement in administrative segregation, conduct while at CSP, program participation, custody issues, and any other factors deemed relevant by the committee. If approved
by the classification committee, the warden will review and determine the appropriateness for referral to
the joint interview committee. If the warden agrees with the classification committee, the inmate is then
submitted for joint interview and review by central classification and CSP management staff. When
approved by this committee, the inmate is assigned Quality of Life Level-Four status. Upon completion
of the PRO Unit, the inmate will progress to a less secure facility. Upon approval the inmate is required
to write two letters to the program manager. The first letter is entitled, "Why Do I Want To Go To The
PRO Unit?" and the second letter is entitled, "How Do I Plan To Be Successful In Completing The
Program?" These letters must be submitted and reviewed and placed in the inmate's file prior to the inmate
being moved to the PRO Unit. These letters serve to begin the inmate's commitment process and also provide a resource for staff use when necessary to reinforce behavioral modification.
A Program Compliance Plan (PCP) is developed by the assigned case manager for each inmate entering
the PRO Unit. The PCPidentifies specific program needs and behavioral expectations of the inmate while
in the program. The inmate can only progress out of the program to a general population facility by completing the requirements of the PCP. Staffing may occur during the inmate’s participation in the PRO Unit
to determine if non-compliance with the PCP warrants modification of the plan or inmate removal from
the PRO Unit.
Upon placement into the PRO Unit, inmates are assigned to a cell to begin the evaluation/orientation program which lasts for approximately two months.
Evaluation Period - 1st Phase (approximately two weeks)
Upon arrival to the PRO Unit, newly assigned inmates will be managed as Quality of Life Level Three.
Correctional line staff will provide orientation, continue to evaluate CSP custody issues and assess the
inmate’s attitude and his overall commitment to the program. Upon approval from CSP administration,
the 2nd phase of the evaluation will begin.
Evaluation Period - 2nd Phase (approximately two weeks)
Phase 2 consists of unescorted and unrestrained individual movement for day hall activities such as shower, exercise and telephone. This will be the first time during the inmate's stay at CSP that he is able to
move without restraints. Inmates will remain on 23-hour lockdown and receive meals in cells. Upon
approval from CSPAdministration, the 3rd phase of evaluation will begin.
Evaluation Period - 3rd Phase (approximately two weeks)
During Phase 3, the inmates will be allowed out for an abbreviated day hall activity schedule. The program allows for 90 minutes of regular day hall activity. Inmates in groups of four will be allowed out for
45 minutes of the first half of the day hall. The remaining four inmates in the day hall will be allowed out
for the second half.
251
Extensive correctional line staff observation will occur during this time. Inmates will be evaluated on
Posted Operational Rule compliance as well as their ability to take direction. Inmates will continue to
receive meals in their cells. At this level, the Evaluation/Orientation process begins. The case manager
will review the inmate’s file for behavioral and program needs. Upon approval of CSPAdministration, the
4th phase will begin.
Evaluation Period - 4th Phase (approximately two weeks)
Eight inmates (one tier) will participate in day hall activities, as well as receive meals as a group. Case
managers will continue program development plans and evaluate behavioral needs, explain the compliance
plan and obtain signatures. Inmates will remain at this level until authorized by CSP administration to participate in classes, gymnasium and recreational activities.
Movement Within the PRO Unit
Inmates are informed upon placement in the PRO Unit that the behavioral expectations are significantly
increased and that they are responsible for their behavior. Successful completion will ensure movement
to a general population facility and any inappropriate behavior or attitude will result in a reduction to
Quality of Life Level One.
After 120 days at Level-Four status, inmates with successful behavior control and program participation
may be considered for movement to Level Five. The case manager will submit a custody reclassification
to the classification committee along with supportive documentation. This review, if approved, will result
in a reclassification of the inmate to Close custody. The inmate will be granted a facility override to close
custody if he meets the Level-Five criteria.
An inmate in Quality Level Four failing to comply with the Program Compliance Plan or exhibiting unacceptable behavior will be subjected to a staffing review for regression to Level-One status. The staffing
committee will include the case manager, pod supervisor, case manager supervisor, mental health staff,
program providers and other affected staff.
An inmate in Quality Level Five failing to comply with the Program Compliance Plan or demonstrating
inappropriate behavior will be removed from population. The process for placement to administrative segregation will then be initiated.
Program Delivery
The cognitive, educational, vocational and mental health programs for Level-Four and Five inmates serve
several purposes. The curriculum addresses thinking errors that lead to inappropriate destructive behaviors and failures. The program also encourages exploration and self-examination. It minimizes narcissism
as well as reveals esteem issues, moral contradiction and self-discovery. The programs offer an opportunity to assess the inmate's behavior in small group settings and allow staff to further assess the appropriateness of the inmate's progression out of CSP. The behaviors and self-responsibilities instilled by this program help to serve as the cornerstone for further personal growth.
The resources used in curriculum development were carefully chosen for their credibility, relevance and
universal application. CSP staff incorporated a great deal of contemporary ideology on restructuring
thought process. The curriculum was designed to essentially help the inmate see what needs to change. It
252
John W. Suthers
stresses the direct relationship between thinking patterns and behavior, and the effects of irresponsible
thinking.
Impulse control, propensity to violence, inability to empathize, gang affiliation, substance abuse and disruptive behavior appear to be the most common characteristics of offenders being assigned to the PRO
Unit. With this in mind the following programs were developed by staff specifically for the PRO Unit:
How To Do Your Time, The Dynamics of Change, Topics for Discussion - Ethics & Moral Dilemmas,
Crime Impact II, Commitment to Change, and Vocational Janitorial Competency-Based Education.
Data Collected and Outcome Results
The effects of the implementation of the PRO Unit have been recognized throughout the facility. Because
of the "light at the end of the tunnel" established by the PRO Unit, inmates are taking a greater responsibility for their behavior which has significantly increased the number of inmates assigned to Quality of
Life Levels Two and Three. Facility disruptions have significantly decreased which has created a safer
working environment for staff. Inmate behavior will provide the necessary factor to determine if an inmate
is ready to progress from administrative segregation. Therefore, the PRO Unit is successfully screening
inmates who are not capable of functioning in a less secure environment. The basis of these conclusions
are drawn from the following statistics:
Of the 226 inmates assigned to the PRO Unit, 188 successfully completed the program. The remaining 38
demonstrated behavior that was not conducive to program standards. As of March 2000, the recidivism
rate for the PRO Unit is 3.7%. This reflects a return of seven inmates from the 188 who progressed to less
secure facilities. Current research indicates that cognitive restructuring is an essential component of effectively modifying behavior. Our statistics support this trend: basically cognitive restructuring works.
Conclusion
Appropriate and positive staff/inmate interaction has had a significant impact on the success of the program at CSP. Highly developed staff interpersonal communication skills that involve praise and support,
constructive comment or criticism and clear direction provide an attitude that tends to improve inmate selfesteem and personal growth.
Personal change cannot be forced or mandated. If the inmate believes we are telling him he must change,
telling him what values he should have and what belief system he should practice, he becomes very resistant. He is not likely to attempt meaningful change because "society" or the Department of Corrections
wants him to. To be truly effective in reducing recidivism, the program must allow the inmate to find his
own motivation to change - one which goes beyond Department of Corrections compliance. Through cognitive restructuring we attempt to help the inmate realize that the behaviors which brought him to CSP are
self-destructive and his thinking was in error. The stratified incentive level program (Quality of Life) is
designed to instill accepting responsibility for their behavior and ultimately controlling their behavior. The
inmate shoulders responsibility for his quality of life. Only as he modifies his own behavior and accepts
responsibility for his actions does he progress.
253
254
A Cognitive Program for Problem Prisoners
Michigan Department of Correction
It is a little ironic that one of the Michigan Department of Correction’s (MDOC) most innovative prison
programs started in its oldest prison, the 113-year-old Michigan Reformatory. Since 1993 staff there have
been providing a program they call STP (Strategies for Thinking Productively) which is designed to give
prisoners the tools they need to change their criminal thinking. The program’s central theme is, "how you
think controls how you behave." The idea, which makes sense, is that for behavior to change, thinking has
to change first.
After 14 introductory lessons during which prisoners learn that thinking drives behavior, and are introduced to the practice of keeping track of their own behavior by writing thinking reports and journals, prisoners move into an in-prison therapeutic community. In groups of eight they work to identify the thinking that has been getting them into trouble. It doesn’t take long to start seeing some results. One officer
had been dealing with a particularly hostile prisoner for several years. After the offender had gone through
the first part of the training, he sought out this officer, apologized for being such a jerk, and offered his
hand in reconciliation. The officer was naturally curious to find out more about the program that could
effect this kind of change, so he signed up for the next staff training session. Take the case during the second part of the program, when an offender blurted out to the group, "I like to hurt people." This was a fact
well understood by staff and prisoners alike - it was the reason he was in the program. But the offender
had never understood that fact about himself before.
Experiences of this sort keep attendance high at the annual training sessions offered by reformatory staff.
This training was started for reformatory employees, but space is made available to interested individuals
from elsewhere in the department. Reformatory staff have also sometimes traveled to other prisons to provide training or consultation. They use the peer training model. That is, the officers and counselors who
actually work daily with offenders are the ones doing the training.
255
One of the things these staff trainees learn is that cognitive programming for prisoners really has a pretty
simple basis – offenders just don’t see themselves the way we see them. They have a whole set of thinking errors which permit them to operate in antisocial ways and which they use to justify their criminal
behavior. In their own minds they do no wrong. Cognitive programs offer a mechanism for offenders to
see themselves as others see them. Some can’t handle this and drop out, but others begin to see how
they’ve harmed others and how much hard work lies ahead to become a decent person. For them there are
measurable differences in behavior.
Surprising as it may seem, what motivates the prisoners who stay in the program is self-disgust. Once they
get a clear picture of the distorted thinking under which they’ve been operating they begin to understand
some of the harm they’ve caused. Most redouble their efforts at sorting out their own thinking errors and
replacing faulty beliefs or developing interventions to short-stop criminal thoughts.
How do we know it is working? STP was the subject of research by Grand Valley State University. A
researcher looked at three groups of 41 prisoners each and monitored misconduct records. One group of
prisoners completed only the educational part of STP; the second group was in the therapeutic community at least six months; and a control group was composed of volunteers for other self-help groups at the
prison who had participated for at least six months.
Staff didn’t expect that the prisoners in the educational phase would behave any differently from others;
after all, they were simply being given information designed to prepare them to do the difficult work of
self-change. The research, however, found that there was a statistically significant difference even for
those offenders. Disobeying a Direct Order (DDO) misconducts, the most frequent at the facility, were
dramatically reduced for those prisoners who completed only 14 lessons about basic cognitive functioning. Maybe this was because they were being introduced to concepts like "respect" and "cooperation" for
the first time. For whatever reason, since DDO is the most frequent misconduct in all of MDOC prisons,
and since by law the Department adds time to sentences for misconduct, this reduction is important. More
time means more cost, and prisoners who behave can be handled in less secure, less expensive settings.
In addition to continued reduction in DDO’s, assaults were also reduced for those who participated in the
therapeutic community phase. Since the program targeted violent offenders, this suggested that the program was achieving its aim.
STP started without any additional staff resources so it had been running on a small scale, with a maximum of 40 prisoners in the therapeutic community. But the encouraging research findings spurred the
MDOC to add staff and see what would happen if this voluntary program was expanded to deal with some
of the most difficult prisoners in the system who were not volunteers.
In October of 1999, 14 additional staff were added so that a new therapeutic community of 192 beds could
be started. Prisoners targeted for participation were those who qualified for maximum security because of
excessive misconduct, but who were not seriously assaultive. These were the scofflaws of the prison system; people forever getting into trouble for being out of place, refusing orders, being insolent or threatening, stealing, fighting and so forth. In other words, convicts just carrying on with their criminal lifestyles
while in prison.
The warden and her staff were challenged to design a program that would propel these anti-authority
offenders into group work where their behavior would be under scrutiny and subject to attack. Since these
256
Bill Martin
offenders were not volunteers, they had the problem of how to motivate them to engage in the difficult
process of self-change.
The way they came up with a program to do this is worth noting. Unlike most programs, it wasn’t
designed at the top and handed down to staff to carry out. Early in the STP process, it became clear that
the staff actually delivering the program had some expertise that the administrators did not. This realization gave birth to the Steering Committee, a group made up of a corrections officer, counselor, sergeant,
the housing unit manager, the program coordinator, the housing deputy, the deputy and the warden. Each
of these had a completely equal say in how the program was to operate. The group operated by consensus: without complete agreement no action could be taken. Some questioned whether, in the para-military
world of corrections, such an entity could work or survive, but everyone in this group felt they had a stake
in the integrity of the project. The success of the STP program owes much to that fact. It was this same
group which designed the new, non-voluntary program, which was christened CHANGE – Cognitive
Housing Approach: New Goals Environment.
An initial orientation is offered to motivate prisoners drafted from throughout the system into CHANGE.
It makes clear that these prisoners have a choice. They can participate in the program or they can remain
in their cells, receiving only constitutionally mandated privileges. Also, participants receive a modest pay
stipend which non-participants do not, and program participation over time is one way to earn reduced custody.
There were many staff concerns at the beginning. Would these incentives work, or would these difficult
prisoners still refuse to participate? Well, of the 40 prisoners so far assigned to CHANGE, only two have
refused to be involved. Would these prisoners’ conduct be so out of control they couldn't function in
groups? So far, that has not been a real problem, though working with one prisoner who could not read
presented challenges. Would putting these "difficult to manage" prisoners all together in one housing unit
result in problems for the officers? While enforcement of rules is more challenging when every offender
in the unit is anti-authority, so far at least, those participating in the CHANGE program seem to behave no
differently than prisoners the reformatory has managed historically.
Is the CHANGE program the same as STP, which had proven results? Yes and no. It uses the same
OPTIONS manual, available from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Information Center in
Longmont, Colorado. But CHANGE adds lessons from another manual newly available from the same
source, called Thinking for a Change, which provides skill training and problem solving elements.
Actually these components have since been incorporated in STP as well, so both programs are now identical in content, though CHANGE is more intense.
For one thing, it is a daily activity. For at least 1.5 hours every weekday, offenders work in their groups
with two staff members, usually a counselor and an officer. Some days, later in the program, may also
include a work session with a staff member serving as a journal partner. Alcoholics or Narcotics
Anonymous and anger management sessions may also be added to the day’s interactions. Because offenders involved in CHANGE are so seriously anti-social, all staff with whom they have significant contact
throughout the institution have been trained in cognitive work and are prepared to give the prisoners feedback when their conduct reflects criminal thinking. This can happen in the classroom or at work, on the
yard or in the housing unit.
An effort of this magnitude not only involves staff throughout the reformatory, it also relies on staff at
257
other facilities to send the prisoners randomly selected for CHANGE and its research control group. Ferris
State University is evaluating the program to see if it meets its goal of reducing prison misconducts. Credit
also has to go to the Michigan legislature for providing the funding such an undertaking requires.
The reformatory’s cognitive programming is offered for inclusion as a Best Practice for two reasons. The
first is the scope, and at the same time the economy, of the program. The staff were able to enlist the cooperation of others throughout the Department, and they initiated this enterprise with existing resources.
The choice to use manuals offered free from NIC, for example, reflects concern for the taxpayers’dollars,
as does the delivery of the programs by officers and counselors, the least expensive staff available for this
task. And the providing of training to others led to the program taking root elsewhere in the system.
The other reason the program deserves recognition is that it has proven results, and may have others yet
to be seen. The decrease in misconduct has led to a safer environment for staff and prisoners, and reduces
the need for costly maximum-security housing. What we do not yet know, but may reasonably hope for,
is that for some this improved behavior will carry over after release to make our communities safer places
for all. This, after all, is the goal of every law enforcement and corrections agency.
258
The Avatar Model for Punitive Segregation Inmates
in the High Security Center
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
A.T. Wall, II, Director
As is true of many correctional systems, Rhode Island has a "Supermax Facility." In our state, it is called
the High Security Center, and is considered the institution of last resort. It houses a select group of inmates
who are considered serious threats to order, safety and security because their behavior in lower custody
institutions has been exceptionally dangerous, disruptive, assaultive and/or unmanageable. The majority
are in long-term administrative or punitive segregation, where they are on lockdown status 23 hours a day
with no programming and only the minimal entitlements required by law. The average length of stay at
the High Security Center is 4.5 years; in punitive segregation status it is 1.5 years.
The need for this form of custody in the system is understood. There is no doubt that the removal of this
small subset of inmates has made Rhode Island’s other institutions safer and more stable. Programming
is limited because security is paramount for this population, and the introduction of programs can compromise the very tight security arrangements needed for this group. In addition, these inmates have shown
themselves to be resistant to traditional forms of treatment in correctional settings.
The agency is, however, concerned about the drawbacks of a High-Security placement, particularly when
it involves the deprivations of punitive segregation. There are physiological and psychological consequences of enforced isolation over an extended period of time. There is also the reality that every year
inmates from High Security are released directly into the community. The facility’s deputy warden told
of his consternation when he saw one of his former inmates, who that very morning had been taken to the
medical area in full restraints, waving to him in a nearby shopping center at lunchtime. The man had been
released from custody in the interim and now enjoyed complete freedom in the community.
Notwithstanding the necessity of the High Security Center, the concern for public safety entails an obligation to offer "a way out" for inmates so that they may experience greater autonomy and socialization
259
The Avatar Model for Punitive Segregation Inmates
before discharge from prison. In 1999 the staff was charged with developing such a program.
The result is the Avatar Project. The project draws its name from the ancient Sanskrit word meaning "to
cross over." It is designed to provide a means for High Security’s punitive segregation inmates to cross
over to lower custody levels.
In discussing the issue with the staff of the National Institute of Corrections, Rhode Island learned that
there was a paucity of such programs for this group. It was acknowledged that, given the nature of this
target population, it would be essential to develop individualized treatment plans with very specific
rewards for positive behavior. In addition, progress would need to be measured in "inches rather than
feet." Because High Security’s inmates were classified into three levels of security, the facility concentrated on the transition from punitive segregation to C category, an intermediate category that can pave the
way to eventual classification out of High Security.
Program planning, a joint effort between treatment and custody staff, included active participation by the
line correctional officers who work in punitive segregation each day. The program is organized into a fivestep process:
• The inmate is given information about the program and has the option of requesting an interview with
the Program Review Panel.
• The panel, composed of a superior officer, clinical psychologist, counselor, representative of the contracted treatment provider and a correctional officer from the inmate’s housing unit, evaluates the inmate’s
candidacy. Minimum requirements include:
• At least four months served in punitive segregation
• No major disciplinary infractions in 30 to 60 days
• A recommendation from a correctional officer who works with the inmate
• A contract to participate, signed by the inmate as a sign of good faith
If accepted, the inmate is granted privileges geared toward greater social interaction:
• A five-minute telephone call each month
• Two 30-minute visits monthly
• Access to program workbooks
The inmate appears before the panel to discuss progress. If the panel is satisfied, the inmate is transferred
from punitive segregation to "Conditional C" status. His remaining punitive segregation time is suspended and he enjoys the privileges of regular C status inmates. Most significant, he begins to participate in
group sessions. Because these inmates remain very high-security risks, groups are limited to three inmates
at a time. They are handcuffed, shackled and under the direct supervision of correctional officers.
The treatment area also includes individual learning cubicles that permit group participation while eliminating direct physical contact. This innovative design includes kiosks for each participant. The kiosks
contain interactive computer-assisted learning modules that permit immediate feedback to the user. The
curriculum focuses on the most fundamental social competencies --- thought vs. impulse, interpretation of
social cues, acceptable ways to express disagreement, conformity to rules, membership in groups and other
learned skills. The materials are grounded in realistic situations that offer concrete examples of situational judgment.
The inmate’s progress is monitored monthly on the basis of such guideposts as motivation, effort, per-
260
A.T. Wall II
formance and attitude. The inmate on conditional C status is considered for upgrade at his next regularly
scheduled classification hearing. His performance in Avatar will be a major factor in the board’s decision.
If the board is satisfied, he will be reclassified to B status: the least restrictive category in High Security
and the precursor to transfer out of the facility.
We are excited about the potential benefits of Avatar. If successful, it will yield greater flexibility in inmate
classification, decrease the length of stay in High Security, less assaultive and disruptive behavior, reduced
risk of release to the street from a High Security setting and enhanced socialization for a difficult population.
At this printing, the first class is just getting underway. We were surprised and pleased by the number of
inmates (some of whom have been notoriously resistant to cooperating with programming in the past) who
expressed the desire to participate. Although we do not yet know how successful our project will be, we
are looking forward to this positive approach to managing our most difficult inmates. Given the alternative, we believe it is a program well worth the effort.
261
262
Offender Accountability Act
In May 1999, enacting what he termed "the most significant crime control action” of last year’s Legislative
session, Washington Governor Gary Locke signed Senate Bill (E2SSB 5421), the Offender Accountability
Act (OAA). This measure provides the Department of Corrections (DOC) additional sanctions in the management of high-risk offenders upon release from state correctional facilities. When implemented July 1,
2000, the law will allow DOC to establish and modify conditions of release and to punish violators by placing them on community custody status without having to return to court. Governor Locke has stated, "The
Offender Accountability Act is the most important change in the state’s role in criminal justice. It will
strengthen our laws, hold offenders accountable upon their release and allow the state to intervene to prevent recidivism and protect communities." DOC currently supervises more than 55,000 community corrections cases statewide.
Themes of the OffenderAccountability Act
Risk Focus - Resources will be prioritized to focus on high-risk offenders and place safety. Assessment of
risk must take into consideration the "risk set." The risk set includes consideration of the harm done, place
and circumstances of the offender related to risk, the offender’s relationship to any victims and information from any victim.
Principles:
• Resources will be deployed based on offender risk level, the nature of the harm done and the potential
risk of re-offense and place safety.
• The community will be involved in defining risk and sharing risk information.
• Mitigation strategies will be aligned with risk factors and community need.
Accountability of the Offender - Offenders are expected to be active participants in all efforts related to
263
their "Accountability Plan" and be responsible for their program planning, program involvement and transition planning. Offenders are accountable to the community through reparation and restitution.
Principles:
• Supervision of all offenders under DOC jurisdiction will be based on community values.
• Offenders will be accountable for law-abiding behavior and following conditions of supervision.
• Offenders are expected to provide reparation and restitution to victims and the community.
• Offenders will be active participants in the development of their "Accountability Plan," which will
include expectations that community standards are met.
Community Oriented Offender Management
Effective management of offenders under the jurisdiction of the DOC includes active community involvement. Community safety requires collaboration and mobilization of resources at the neighborhood level.
Principles:
• The community is our client and our partner.
• Communities—including victims, law enforcement, offenders and families will be involved in defining
problems, seeking solutions and developing community standards for managing offenders.
• DOC staff will be leaders in developing partnerships.
• Develop and maintain a sense of community responsibility, in institutions and in the community, for both
staff and offenders.
• Collaborative methods of supervision, such as guardians, contribute to community safety by minimizing
risk.
• Utilization of teams will enhance effective offender supervision.
• DOC focus must expand beyond individual offender management to include neighborhood and community safety.
• Consequences for violation of community standards and/or the Offender Accountability Plan will be
immediate and certain.
Targeted Interventions
A variety of intervention strategies and methods are needed to positively impact offender behavior.
Interventions will be targeted to address offender’s risk and be responsive to community needs.
Principles:
• Case planning will take into consideration dynamic risk factors and community standards.
• Offenders will be active participants in the identification of appropriate intervention.
• Targeting and comprehensive sequencing will optimize interventions.
• Family/guardians (individuals who can favorably influence behavior) will be involved in all intervention
programs as appropriate.
• There will be a continuum of services to transition offenders from confinement into the community.
• Each region will deliver an array of services that are innovative, flexible and efficient.
• Program selection will be based on research and best practices.
Organizational Accountability
The Department of Corrections must be an organization that is committed to measuring the results of its
work and willing to adjust its efforts as necessary to ensure the theme and principles of the Offender
Accountability Act are achieved.
264
Joseph D. Lehman
Principles:
• The Department of Corrections will be a performance driven organization by systematic use of performance data to manage and make informed agency decisions.
• Resources will be used efficiently and effectively to ensure accomplishment of legislative mandates.
• Staff will be actively involved in developing work expectations and work standards, which will be
aligned with available resources.
• The exercise of DOC authority will be fair and legitimate.
• Organizational, team and individual performance will be recognized and rewarded.
• Community expectations for justice will be an essential consideration in deliberations.
• All offenders will be included under the principles of OAA, wherever possible.
Key provisions of the Offender Accountability Act include
• On July 1, 2000, community supervision (offenders released to the community with crime-related prohibitions) becomes community custody, thus allowing the DOC to establish and modify conditions of
release and punishment without returning to court.
• The Sentencing Guidelines Commission will establish community custody ranges.
• Courts will sentence offenders to a range of community custody.
• When sex offender treatment is imposed, the treatment provider must be certified.
• DOC may establish and modify additional supervision conditions based on the risk to community safety.
• DOC must complete risk assessments of offenders.
• DOC has jurisdiction over offenders on community custody.
• DOC must develop a structure of graduated sanctions for violations.
• Offenders have the right to hearings and hearing officers must report through a separate chain of command than Community Corrections Officers do.
• DOC must arrange to transfer collection of Legal Financial Obligations to county clerks or other collection entities.
• DOC, in conjunction with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and counties, must
establish 1998 jail bed utilization rates and negotiate terms of increase.
• The First Time Offender Waiver changes from two years of community custody to one year and completion of court-ordered treatment.
• DOC has the authority to access records maintained by public agencies.
• DOC must develop and monitor transition and relapse prevention strategies for sex offenders.
• DOC must deploy CCOs on the basis of the geographic distribution of offenders.
• DOC must establish a systematic means of assessing the risk to community safety.
The Offender Accountability Act relates directly to DOC’s mission and vision. Our agency vision is
"Working together for safe communities," with the operative words being "safe" and "together." Citizens
who reside in the neighborhoods and communities we serve have to be our partners; we cannot effect
"safe" communities by ourselves. Informal social controls at work in our neighborhoods, communities,
churches and workplaces are far more powerful in influencing behavior that the coercive authority of the
criminal justice system.
To accomplish this, DOC must have a visible community presence. The community—family members,
neighbors, employers and those who work with the offender are entitled to know what the offender did,
what they are supposed to do, and what they are not permitted to do upon return to the community. Not
265
knowing cripples their capacity to influence or exert controls over offenders’ actions.
The development of the individual "Accountability Plan" will be shaped by the dynamic risk factors:
changeable factors of offender characteristics, circumstances, relationships or places, and the use of
guardians to monitor, influence, treat and support the offender in the community. Targeted interventions
will also be used to mitigate risk. Research is unequivocal in asserting that for most offenders, supervision or surveillance alone will not be effective. Responsible offender management requires us to develop
intervention strategies based on research and the best practices in our field.
Deterrence will be achieved when offenders participate in the development of their accountability plan,
when expectations are clearly defined and when there is a greater degree of certainty in detecting violations and the imposition of consequences. Deterring behavior is first and foremost a function of the professional ability to detect unwarranted behavior. Low levels of detection result in minimal deterrence.
Focusing on a limited number of high-risk offenders and delivering the message about what is acceptable
and what will not be tolerated, combined with the capacity to detect violations when they occur can make
a major difference. Available research consistently makes the point that it is not the severity of the punishment that makes the difference in behavior, but rather the certainty and the immediacy of its application. The Offender Accountability Act gives DOC the tools to affect certain and immediate consequences
for violation behavior, which will aid in reducing the risks of re-offense and work to create safe communities.
266
The BRAVE Program
The Beckley Responsibility and Values Enhancement (BRAVE) Program was implemented in January
1998 as a pilot project of the Bureau of Prisons to help certain offenders adjust to incarceration and begin
to prepare for eventual release. Inmates in the program are 32 years old or younger, have a sentence of 60
months or more and have no prior Federal incarcerations. Bureau research has demonstrated that inmates
30 years old or younger, as a group, have the greatest difficulty in adapting to institution rules and regulations. The Bureau believes that quick intervention with these inmates will help them better cope with
their prison terms. The program operates at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Beckley, West
Virginia.
The 36-week BRAVE Program is designed to help inmates develop pro-social values, maintain clear conduct and use their time in prison in a positive manner. Participants live in BRAVE Program housing units
and the majority of the treatment activities are carried out in the unit. All residents of the BRAVE Program
housing units must be either program participants or program graduates. Participants are assigned to
cohorts of 30 inmates; a new cohort begins approximately every six weeks. Participants attend classes half
the day and work in an institution job assignment the other half.
Upon arrival at FCI Beckley, BRAVE Program designees are placed immediately in a BRAVE Program
unit. Although inmates are designated to the program, participation is voluntary. The program offers several incentives to encourage participation, including an institution workers’ wage (to compensate for the
time away from a job assignment). There are also some special privileges, courses and activities that are
targeted to meet the needs of the participants, a college scholarship program and a spirit of camaraderie
among inmates who are working toward a common goal.
The BRAVE Program is staffed by a treatment team that consists of employees assigned exclusively to the
267
The BRAVE Program
program (a program coordinator and five treatment specialists) and employees from other disciplines and
departments in the institution such as education, recreation, chaplaincy services and health services.
The program also uses inmate mentors. BRAVE Program mentors live in the BRAVE unit, attend classes, make presentations, provide informal guidance and support and serve as role models in the unit and
throughout the institution. To be selected as a mentor, an inmate must have at least three years clear conduct, be recommended highly by his unit team, unit officers, and work supervisor and must complete an
intensive screening process.
The BRAVE Program Curriculum
The BRAVE Program makes liberal use of discussions, readings, videotapes and small-group activities to
maintain a high level of interest and participation. In addition to the daylong requirements, small group
sessions, which are elective choices of the participants, meet during evening hours.
There are three phases in the BRAVE Program:
• Phase One consists of an orientation to the program and includes classes and activities in areas such as
basic institution policy, adjustment to incarceration, values, communication skills, wellness, recreation,
motivational reading and current events.
• Phase Two of the program includes classes and activities in areas such as cognitive skills, criminal
lifestyle confrontation, education, emotional control, introduction to spirituality, recreation and current
events.
• Phase Three includes classes in areas such as peer influences in prison, victim impact, general education,
current events, drug education and transition and relapse prevention.
Results of Research
Preliminary findings from a research evaluation indicate that inmates who participated in the BRAVE
Program had substantially lower rates of misconduct when compared to similar inmates who did not participate. Inmates who completed the program had a misconduct rate that was 55.3% lower than the rate
of misconduct of other inmates who entered the Bureau during the same time period, were designated to
a medium-security facility and who matched the criteria used to select BRAVE participants.
Inmates who completed the program and who were judged by staff to have performed at an "average" or
"above average" level had a misconduct rate that was 75.0% lower than the comparison group. Inmates
who were judged to have performed at a "below average" level had a misconduct rate that was only 19.3%
lower than the comparison group.
The Brave Lite Program
In addition to the BRAVE Program, FCI Beckley operates a "BRAVE Lite" Program, which began in
December 1999. The BRAVE Lite Program is a very brief, highly condensed introduction to the concepts
of the BRAVE Program. The BRAVE Lite Program is offered to all new arrivals at the institution. The
program lasts two weeks and is a full-day program that immediately follows the institution’s Admission
268
Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer
and Orientation Program. The BRAVE Lite Program focuses on adjustment to incarceration, communication skills and basic institution policy. The Bureau is hopeful that the BRAVE Lite Program will set the
expectations and tone for all inmates who are confined at FCI Beckley and will encourage inmates to participate in the BRAVE Program.
269
270
The CODE Program
The Bureau of Prisons’ CODE (Challenge, Opportunity, Discipline and Ethics) Program is an 18-month,
residentially-based program for high-security, male inmates and is designed to target the reduction of antisocial attitudes and behaviors. It was developed in 1997 based on research which found that high-security inmates who successfully completed one of the Bureau’s residential drug abuse treatment programs
were nearly 50% less likely than inmates who did not participate in residential drug treatment to be
involved in misconduct in the two years following treatment.
The CODE Program is based on a cognitive restructuring approach and emphasizes the value of respect
for self and others, responsibility for personal actions, honesty in relationships and tolerance. CODE
Programs are active at the eight high-security Federal prisons, and more than 500 inmates are currently
enrolled.
There are four phases in the CODE Program:
• The Orientation Phase runs for approximately three months with at least four hours of program participation each week. During the Orientation Phase, inmates learn about the expectations of the program.
They are introduced to the group process concept and they learn the roles played by staff from many of
the departments within the institution. Inmates are tasked with learning and conforming to a "Program
Code of Conduct" which stresses honesty, tolerance, respect and responsibility.
• The Primary Program Phase runs for six months and requires half-day participation. This phase provides
inmates with the core of program course work, group work and individual counseling. This phase includes
courses in areas such as criminal lifestyle confrontation, interpersonal communication, anger management
and victim impact awareness. This phase also includes continued work in values development. An impor-
271
The CODE Program
tant characteristic of the CODE Program is that instruction and counseling are provided by staff from several departments in the institution. Community volunteers offer additional expertise for many of the courses.
• The Life Planning Phase of treatment runs for three months and requires participation twice a week in
classes and group sessions both within and outside the unit. Inmates participate in classes or group counseling sessions that target their identified needs, but very often include inmates from outside the CODE
Program. These classes include, for example, General Educational Development (GED) preparation,
health promotion/disease prevention classes, drug education and/or non-residential drug abuse treatment,
pre-release planning and parenting classes. This phase of treatment also calls for strong interdisciplinary
support from institution staff.
• The Aftercare Phase of treatment lasts for a minimum of six months, but potentially can last for the length
of time an inmate remains in the institution. In this final phase, participants are required to attend a weekly two-hour group session that focuses on values enhancement. Inmates are also required to participate in
CODE-related activities in addition to their general institution requirements of a work assignment and
other non-CODE Program participation. To fulfill their CODE-related activity requirement, inmates act
as mentors or tutors to other CODE participants, help new CODE inmates during orientation to the program or help staff in developing or maintaining a CODE Program library. Inmates who have completed
the four phases of the CODE Program are encouraged to remain in the Aftercare Phase of the program
unless space is needed for new participants.
CODE Program graduations have been held at the United States Penitentiary (USP) Lompoc, California;
USP Florence, Colorado; USP Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; and USP Terre Haute, Indiana. The Bureau is
conducting research that tracks CODE Program graduates in order to measure institutional adjustment and
post-release outcomes. Research on the CODE Program is underway to assess program impact on
inmates’ adjustment to high-security confinement.
272
ASCA History
273
274
ASCA History
ASCA History
Camille and George Camp
ASCA Executive Directors
The Association of State Correctional Administrators took shape during the 1960's, as states began to merge the operations of their growing numbers of prisons into single state agencies. These newly formed Departments of Correction
were headed by many former wardens, as well as by other individuals from both the public and private sectors. As
the number of departments of corrections increased, the individuals appointed to run these systems began to interact
with each other.
There were many great leaders in the field of corrections who were instrumental in the establishment of the
Association. At the risk of omitting someone, these individuals and the jurisdictions they represented at that time,
come to mind: Ellis MacDougall (SC), George McGrath (MA), Fred Wilkerson (MO), Dick McGee (CA), George
Beto (TX), Sanger Powers (WI), John Moran (DE), and Gus Harrison (MI).
They quickly realized that the roles they were now playing varied significantly from the warden's position that many
of them had previously occupied. A sense of shared experiences and common bonds as well as the need to discuss
problems and possible solutions served to formalize their informal relationships in the form of an organized pursuit
of correctional goals and objectives. Those objectives, which were incorporated into the Constitution and By-laws
of the Association, continue today as the foundation for ASCA's efforts. They read then and now as follows:
The objective of this organization shall be the improvement of correctional services and practices through promoting and facilitating:
1. the exchange of ideas and philosophies at the top administrative level of correctional planning and policy-making;
2. the advancement of correctional techniques, particularly in the areas of program development, design of physical
facilities, staff training, and correctional management facilities;
3. public support for and understanding of the criminal justice system with particular emphasis on the corrections
function and the interest and acceptance by the community of its responsibility for the prevention of delinquency and
the reintegration of persons who have come into conflict with the law;
4. research in correctional practices, anti-social behavior, causes of crime and delinquency and cooperation in such
research;
5. the development and application of correctional standards and accreditation;
6. the fostering of legislative and other measures designed to accomplish this objective;
7. the exchange of information with international agencies and organizations interested in correctional programs; and
8. the undertaking of such work and projects of an allied character as may be authorized by the membership.
Membership in ASCA was limited to that person charged with the responsibility for administering the correctional
system in each state, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Membership was also extended to
the heads of three urban correctional systems and to the Correctional Service of Canada. The three urban systems
were located in Cook County (IL), Philadelphia, and New York City. Since that time membership has been extended to all the provinces in Canada, and to all U.S. Territories and Commonwealths.
For twenty years ASCAmembers gathered bi-annually for a luncheon meeting during the course of the summer and
ASCA History
275
winter meetings of the American Correctional Association. Those gatherings included time to socialize, hear from
an invited speaker, listen to remarks by the president, and accept a report from the treasurer. During the summer
meeting a slate of officers were nominated and by acclamation voted into office by the members present. Dues were
nominal and served primarily to defray the cost of the bi-annual lunch.
From 1983 to 1984, during the presidential tenure of Don Yeomans of the Correctional Service of Canada, a significant shift in the course of the Association unfolded. Continuing to exist primarily as a loosely structured and less
than purposeful organization seemed to many to be unsatisfactory. President Yeomans charged the membership with
choosing one of two options with regard to the future of ASCA. Either ASCA should become a focused and business-like organization, with staff and financial resources, to support its work; or it should disband. After much discussion, the membership voted unanimously to engage staff on a part-time basis and to increase the dues to finance
its operations.
In August of 1984, ASCA selected Camille and George Camp of the Criminal Justice Institute to become ASCA's
part-time Executive Directors effective January 1, 1985. They have continued to serve in that capacity since that
time. Over the last 16 years ASCA has been led by ten presidents, each of whom was elected to a two-year term.
They include: Morris Thigpen (MS, 1985-1986); Hal Farrier (IA, 1987); David Evans (GA, 1988-1989); Thomas
Coughlin (NY, 1990-1992); Orville Pung (MN, 1992-1993); Walter Ridley (DC, 1993); Elaine Little (ND, 19941996); Harold Clarke (NE, 1997-1998); Joseph Lehman (WA, 1999-2000); and now by Ron Angelone (VA).
Under their leadership, ASCA has been steered by its Executive Committee whose members consists of the three
nationally elected officers - President, Vice President, and Treasurer, as well as by four regionally elected representatives. The Executive Committee is supported by the work of numerous ASCAcommittees that address the professional concerns of the membership. A newsletter serves to disseminate information ten times a year to the members
and to associate members. More recently the creation of the ASCA web site and the use of an ASCA email system
has provided even greater sharing of information and ideas between members, and between members and their executive staff.
ASCAhas benefited immeasurably from the lengthy support of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and more
recently from the support of the Corrections Program Office (CPO). For more than 20 years NIC has provided the
financial support for ASCA's training programs. Annually, members assemble for professional development seminars over a two-day period of time. Normally, intensive training and orientation is provided twice a year for those
directors who have recently assumed the role of the head of corrections in their jurisdiction. These peer-based training programs were modeled after similar programs provided by the National Governors’Association for newly elected governors. CPO has also played a major role in the support of ASCA's work and projects by providing funding
to support the work of committees that are addressing substance abuse issues, privatization, victims, and violence in
prisons.
276
ASCA History
Afterword
277
278
Afterword
Afterword
Editor and Best Practices Committee Chair
So what's all the song and dance regarding "best practices" about anyhow? Of course, I'm a tad bit biased, but I happen to think the positive future of corrections rests with the notion that just cruising along "ain't good enough no
more" for our profession or for the taxpaying public. The public deserves better results; law-makers demand more
accountability; the futures of the offenders we supervise and their families are at stake; and, the safety of the communities we live in may very well rest, in part, in our hands. These are sobering responsibilities and, with all the
resources available to us, we would be remiss to conduct "business as usual."
It's unfortunate that corrections is still stereotyped and misrepresented in many forums. Take, for example, OZ (short
for Oswald Correctional), the late night HBO series. OZ successfully packs about three years of stereotypical, worstcase prison scenarios into horrific one-hour segments. Because of its success, and the popularity of similar depictions, it's no wonder corrections is relegated to continuously dig itself out of the proverbial hole of public opinion.
It's time to set the record straight. Call me naïve, but I happen to think that initiatives such as Correctional Best
Practices: Directors' Perspectives will go the distance in reversing adverse public perceptions about our chosen field.
Correctional best practices come in many shapes and forms. Innovative techniques for supervising predatory inmates
may be included. One may find an exceptional administrative philosophy for organizational management. A therapeutic community or programming for offenders with mental illness might fit the bill. Transitional techniques for
released offenders are a growing concern. And of course, security is omnipresent in our correctional minds. We must
attempt to discern exactly what the component parts of a best practice really are. My contention is that there are some
common (or maybe uncommon) traits.
There should be commitment from the top, line staff levels, and points in between. Evaluation of programs should
not be an afterthought, but a part of the initial program planning. Enthusiasm is always a good ingredient. Where
required, the necessary resources should be appropriated. Staff training is a must. Innovation and creativity are also
coveted menu items. Overcoming barriers and, in some cases, tradition, might be what the doctor ordered. Humility
can be a hindrance; we need to market our successes. Corrections is a profession replete with unintended consequences. We are now in pursuit of intended consequences.
The correctional table is now being set to make some powerful statements about the contributions and successes of
our craft. In August 1998 as president of the American Correctional Association, I unveiled the publication of Best
Practices: Excellence in Corrections, which outlined dozens of stellar correctional programs. ACApresident Richard
Stalder has continued this effort with the ACA Best Practices Journal. The International Corrections and Prisons
Association has formed the International Centre for Exchanging Best Correctional Practices, which I
direct.
Other organizations are focusing not just on the all-too-common trouble-shooting that's always required in this business, but also on "what works" and "what's promising." The National Governors' Association even has an Institute
for Best Practices. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge advised at the 2000 NGAconference that, "Governors, regardless of political affiliation, have to follow the practice of what works."
This is both an exhilarating and intimidating time for us as corrections leaders. We can either sink or swim; happy
mediums are unacceptable. I encourage you to read and learn from this compilation of ideas and others like it.
What's more, I urge you to apply some of these best practices to your organization and build on them to create your
own signature. Develop effective in-house and guest-expert teams and allow their work to further your vision.
Stimulate discussion and understand that's is okay to be skeptical, but not cynical about our vocation. It's time that
correctional professionals are galvanized under the rubric of "doing the right thing."
Afterword
279
Oftentimes, we need to be reminded that our business is much more extensive than just running "joints" and supervising offenders on the "line." Best practices should extend to include community participation on a level we've not
seen before. We should not be perceived as perpetuating "secret society" myths. We have nothing to hide! Victims
and survivors of crime should be integrated at policy-making levels in our agencies. We should no longer be in denial
about the significance of victims' inclusion. The list of those to be included in our operations goes on to embrace the
business community, faith groups, higher education, law enforcement, service providers, etc.
I put forward that we are approaching a fork in the road and that we will be obligated to make the decision to either
continue dated correctional practices or make leadership judgments based on good data. There is no doubt that the
prong we should take will be the "good data" one. I enjoy a good prison flick as much as the next person does. But,
I think OZ-like portrayals and correctional narrow-mindedness is not a laughing matter. Correctional best practices
are our best defense to debunk perceptions that our profession is a less than noble one. While the "best practices"
tradewinds are blowing, let's exploit our opportunities to make an even bigger difference.
To be continued....
280
Afterword
Addendum
281
282
ADDENDUM
285
ASCA Regional Map
291
ASCA Map of DOC’s with Parole/Probation Responsibility
293
295
Addendum
283
284
Addendum
Executive Committee
Joe Lehman, Washington - President
Ron Angelone, Virginia - Vice-President
James Spalding, Idaho - Treasurer
John Gorczyk, Vermont - Northeast Representative
Dora Schriro, Missouri - Midwest Representative
Michael Moore, Florida - Southern Representative
Robert Perry, New Mexico - Western Representative
Best Practices Committee
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio - Chairperson
Bill Martin, Michigan
Glenn Goord, New York
Controlling the Difficult to Manage Inmate Committee
Jim Spalding, Idaho - Chairperson
Michael Haley, Alabama
Margaret Pugh, Alaska
Cal Terhune, California
John Armstrong, Connecticut
Stan Taylor, Delaware
Ed Cohn, Indiana
Charles Simmons, Kansas
Mike Maloney, Massachusetts
Rob Perry, New Mexico
James Saffle, Oklahoma
Wayne Scott, Texas
John Gorczyk, Vermont
Ron Angelone, Virginia
Ole Ingstrup, Canada
Addendum
285
External Relations Committee
Harold Clarke, Nebraska - Chairperson
Kathy Hawk Sawyer, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Mike Moore, Florida
Donald Snyder, Illinois
Dora Schriro, Missouri
Elaine Little, North Dakota
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio
A.T. Wall, Rhode Island
Jeff Bloomberg, South Dakota
Juvenile and Designated Youthful Adult Offenders Committee
Jeff Bloomberg, South Dakota - Chairperson
Michael Moore, Florida
Ted Sakai, Hawaii
Edward Cohn, Indiana
Richard Stalder, Louisiana
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Minnesota
Rick Day, Montana
Donal Campbell, Tennessee
Legislative and Legal Issues Committee
Wayne Scott, Texas - Chairperson
Terry Stewart, Arizona
John Suthers, Colorado
Kip Kautzky, Iowa
Jeff Bloomberg, South Dakota
286
Addendum
Native American Issues Committee
Ed Cohn, Indiana - Chairperson
Dora Schriro, Missouri
Rick Day, Montana
Harold Clarke, Nebraska
Judy Uphoff, Wyoming
Nominating Committee
Stan Taylor, Delaware - Chairperson
Policy & Resolutions Committee
Jack Terhune, New Jersey - Chairperson
Program & Training Committee
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio - Chairperson
Jim Spalding, Idaho
William Sondervan, Maryland
Jack Terhune, New Jersey
A.T. Wall, Rhode Island
Addendum
287
Resource Committee on Privatization Issues
James Saffle, Oklahoma - Chairperson
Larry Norris, Arkansas
Ted Sakai, Hawaii
James Spalding, Idaho
Kip Kautzky, Iowa
Rick Day, Montana
John Fleming, Ontario
Doug Catoe, South Carolina
Staff Safety Committee
Terry Stewart, Arizona - Chairperson
Ted Sakai, Hawaii
Rick Day, Montana
Dave Cook, Oregon
Judy Uphoff, Wyoming
Standards Committee
Odie Washington, District of Columbia - Chairperson
Kip Kautzky, Iowa
Wayne Scott, Texas
288
Addendum
Substance Abuse Committee
Stan Taylor, Delaware - Chairperson
Odie Washington, District of Columbia
Jack Terhune, New Jersey
Wayne Scott, Texas
Judith Uphoff, Wyoming
Technology Committee
Martin Horn, Pennsylvania - Chairperson
Edward Cohn, Indiana
Mike Maloney, Massachusetts
Paul Kirby, West Virginia
Victims Committee
Dora Schriro, Missouri - Chairperson
Michael Haley, Alabama
Odie Washington, District of Columbia
William Sondervan, Maryland
Addendum
289
290
Addendum
Addendum
291
292
Addendum
Addendum
293
294
Addendum
In memory of Michael Francke, who was Director of Corrections in Oregon at the time he was killed in
1989, the Association established an annual award for a member who has demonstrated outstanding leadership, contribution to corrections, accomplishment, and service to the Association, his or her state, and to
the field of corrections. The award is given to a member who has demonstrated outstanding leadership,
accomplishment, and/or service to the Association, his or her home state, and/or to the field of corrections.
Members are nominated by other corrections administrators, a supervising authority, or senior staff person. Past recipients of the Michael Francke Award are listed below.
1999
Dora B. Schriro
Director, Missouri Department of Corrections
1998
Kathleen Hawk Sawyer
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
1997
Harold Clarke
Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
1996
Reginald Wilkinson
Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
1995
Elaine Little
Director, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1994
Joseph Lehman
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
1993
Chase Riveland
Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections
1992
Morris Thigpen
Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
Addendum
295
296
Correctional
Resource Guide
297
298
CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY RESEARCH
ABTASSOCIATES, INC.
Wendell Knox, President
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-1168
(617) 492-7100
www.abtassoc.com
Abt Associates is a social science research firm. Its
Law and Public Policy Group studies a variety of law
and justice issues, including sentencing and corrections policies and programs.
CEGA SERVICES, INC.
CeCe Hill, Vice President
P.O. Box 81826
Lincoln, NE 68401-1826
(402) 464-0602
www.corrections.com
An information and referral agency, CEGA provides
survey information for the American Correctional
Association in publishing the Corrections
Compendium, a monthly journal for corrections professionals that reports statistics on corrections topics
on a state-by-state basis.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE
George and Camille Camp, Co-Presidents
213 Court Street, 6th Floor
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 704-6400
www.cij-inc.com
The Criminal Justice Institute conducts research, provides consulting services, publishes the Corrections
Yearbook and disseminates information to criminal
justice practitioners around the country.
DOBLE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
John Doble, President
375 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(201) 568-7200
www.dobleresearch.com
Doble Research Associates conducts public opinion
research on topics facing the country such as crime,
prison overcrowding, and intermediate sanctions.
JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF
GOVERNMENT
Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management
Mark Moore, Faculty Chairman
Harvard University
79 JFK Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-5188
www.ksg.harvard.edu/criminaljustice
The Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management aims to strengthen criminal justice institutions and practitioners by challenging conventional
wisdom through research and debate on justice policy
and management issues.
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME
AND DELINQUENCY
Barry Krisberg, President
1970 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 208-0500
www.nccd-crc.org
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
conducts research on programs and policies designed
to reduce crime and delinquency. NCCD publishes
papers on corrections issues, statistical updates, and a
quarterly newsletter "NCCD Focus."
NATIONALINSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Julie Samuels, Acting Director
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
(202) 307-2942
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
A research and development agency of the United
States Department of Justice, the National Institute of
Justice seeks to prevent and reduce crime and
improve the criminal justice system.
NATIONALINSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Alan Leshner, Director
6001 Executive Boulevard
Bethesda, MD 20892-1124
(301) 443-1124
www.nida.nih.gov
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the
lead federal agency conducting research on the prevalence of drug abuse in the U.S. The Institute studies
the causes and consequences of drug abuse, as well as
prevention and treatment techniques.
299
PUBLIC AGENDA
Deborah Wadsworth, Executive Director
6 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
(212) 686-6610
www.publicagenda.org
Public Agenda is a research and educational organization that explores public understanding of complex
policy issues. The group has conducted studies on
policy perceptions of crime, corrections and the use
of intermediate sanctions and has developed issue
guides on crime and juvenile violence.
RAND
Jim Thomson, President
Criminal Justice Program
1700 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
www.rand.org
Through high quality objective research and broad
dissemination, RAND’s Criminal Justice Program
assists policymakers and opinion leaders in understanding key trends relating to public safety, the operation of the criminal justice system and the costs and
benefits of related public policy options.
THE SAFER SOCIETY FOUNDATION INC.
Gina Brown, Acting Director
P.O. Box 340
Brandon, VT 05733-0340
(802) 247-3132
www.safersociety.org
Safer Society is a national research, advocacy and
referral center focusing on the prevention and treatment of sexual abuse. Safer Society Press publishes
research and training materials on the nature of sex
offenders and the needs of victims.
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Christopher Stone, Director
233 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10013
(212) 334-1300
www.vera.org
The Vera Institute works to enlarge justice in institutions of government. Its research and demonstration
projects have catalyzed changes throughout the
United States, as well as a number of other countries,
in policing procedures, court administration, bail,
prosecution and defense services, sentencing, community supervision, employment services, and addiction treatment.
300
LITIGATION AND LEGAL COUNSEL
FLORIDAJUSTICE INSTITUTE
Randall Berg, Jr., Executive Director
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2870
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 358-2081
The Florida Justice Institute engages in prison and jail
reform litigation and advocacy aimed at restricting
the use of incarceration in Florida.
JUVENILE LAW CENTER
Robert G. Schwartz, Executive Director
1315 Walnut Street, 4th floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 625-0551
www.jlc.org
The Juvenile Law Center (JLC) monitors the use of
Pennsylvania facilities that house juveniles both
before and after trial and works to improve in-home
services. JLC uses litigation, case advocacy, and
coalition building and training with legislative and
executive branches of government to improve the
juvenile after-care and probation systems.
THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Elizabeth Alexander, Executive Director
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 410
(202) 234-4830
Through litigation, negotiation and monitoring of
consent decrees, the National Prison Project challenges unconstitutional conditions of confinement in
U.S. prison and jails.
SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Stephen B. Bright, Executive Director
83 Poplar Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 688-1202
www.schr.org
The Southern Center for Human Rights works to
improve conditions in Southern prisons and jails
through litigation and community education.
YOUTH LAW CENTER
Brent Appel, President
Kathryn Miller, Executive Director
218 Sixth Avenue, Suite 706
Des Moines, IA 50309
(800) 728-1172
www.youthlawcenter.org
Through litigation, technical assistance projects and
training, the Youth Law Center works to end the confinement of youth in adult institutions and improve
conditions in juvenile detention centers and training
in the United States. The center also advocates for
the expansion of alternatives to incarceration.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION
Peter Kinziger, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1987
LaCrosse, WI 54602
(608) 785-0200
www.iccaweb.org
Representing residential and other community-based
correctional programs, the International Community
Corrections Association (ICCA) provides information, training and other services and promotes the
development and use of intermediate community
sanctions.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
NATIONALASSOCIATION OF
PRETRAILSERVICES AGENCIES
John Dupree, President
Assistant Court Administrator
Volusia County Justice Center
251 North Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
(904) 239-7780
www.napsa.org
The National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies
assists states with the development of pretrial supervision programs.
AMERICAN CORRECTIONALASSOCIATION
James A. Gondles, Jr., Executive Director
4380 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
(800) 222-5646
www.corrections.com/aca
Founded in 1870, the American Correctional
Association seeks to shape the development of corrections policy in this country and promote professional development in all areas of corrections. ACA
accredits correctional agencies and publishes books,
magazines and other documents.
AMERICAN PROBATION AND
PAROLE ASSOCIATION
Carl Wicklund, Executive Director
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578
(859) 244-8203
www.appa-net.org
American Probation and Parole Association members
are involved in the design, management and delivery
of probation, parole and community-based services
for both adult and juvenile offenders. The association
publishes reports and policy statements and organizes
educational programs.
COUNCIL OF JUVENILE
CORRECTIONALADMINISTRATORS
Mary Ann Saar, President
Stonehill College
16 Belmont Street
South Easton, MA 02375
(508) 238-0073
www.corrections.com/cjca
The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
brings together juvenile justice leaders. CJCA is dedicated to the improvement of juvenile correctional
services and practices.
INTERNATIONAL CORRECTIONS AND
PRISONS ASSOCIATION
Jennifer Oades, Executive Director
340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0P9 Canada
(613)-943-3058
[email protected]
www.icpa.ca/board/index.html
International Corrections and Prisons Association provides a forum for criminal justice professionals to
join in a dialogue and to share ideas and practices
aimed at advancing professional corrections.
301
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
ORGANIZATIONS
CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICY
Peggy McGarry
8403 Colesville Road Suite 720
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 589-9383
The Center for Effective Public Policy provides training and technical assistance to state and local policymakers on effective, collaborative decision-making
that incorporates sound information and promotes
more rational criminal justice policies.
THE EDNA McCONNELL CLARK
FOUNDATION
Justice Program
Michael A. Balin, President
250 Park Avenue, Suite 900
New York, NY 10177-0026
(212) 551-9100
www.emcf.org
The Justice Program encourages the development of
a safe, affordable and fair system of criminal sanctions for adult offenders. The Program works with
officials in selected states to develop their capacity to
formulate and implement sound sentencing and corrections policies. The Program also supports a variety of educational initiatives and litigation to improve
conditions in prisons and jails throughout the country.
DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION
Ira Glasser, President
4455 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite B-500
Washington, DC 20008-2302
(202) 537-5005
http://www.dpf.org
The Drug Policy Foundation is an independent, nonprofit organization that researches and publicizes
alternatives to current drug strategies. Through a variety of programs, the Drug Policy Foundation helps
educate political leaders and the public about alternative drug control policies including harm reduction,
decriminalization, medicalization and legalization.
302
INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT
National Center for State Courts
Chuck Ericksen, Executive Director
P.O. Box 8798
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798
(757) 253-2000
www.ncsc.dni.us/ICM
The Institute for Court Management is the education
and information division of the National Center for
State Courts and supports the administration and
leadership of state courts.
INSTITUTE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
University of Minnesota Law School
Kenneth F. Schoen, Director
285 Law Center
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-4025
www.umn.edu/law/centers/crimjust.htm
The Institute on Criminal Justice at the University of
Minnesota Law School serves as a resource for policymakers and administrators on the components of a
responsible, well-run criminal justice system. The
institute is hoe to the State Partnership for Criminal
Justice (formerly the State-Centered Program of the
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation), which works
with state criminal justice leaders to design more
effective uses of criminal justice resources.
NATIONALASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Donald Murray, Associate Legislative Director for
Criminal Justice
440 First St. NW
Suite 800
(202) 393-6226
www.naco.org
Through conferences, seminars and its bimonthly
publication, "County News," the National
Association of Counties seeks to assist county policymakers in making informed decisions on criminal
justice issues. The association has long promoted
community corrections acts and capacity-based sentencing guidelines.
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Margot Lindsay
14 Beacon Street, Suite 710
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 350-6150
The National Center for Citizen Participation in the
Administration of Justice is a nonprofit organization
that promotes public involvement in the justice system. The center works with courts and corrections
agencies to create mechanisms for including citizen
in the development, monitoring and evaluation of justice policies and programs.
NATIONALCONFERENCE OF
STATE LEGISLATURES
Donna Lyons, Program Manager Criminal Justice
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 830-2200
www.ncsl.org
The National Conference of State Legislatures is the
official representative of America’s 7,500 state lawmakers and their staff. Through its information services, training sessions, special projects and committees, the Criminal Justice Program of the Conference
seeks to help legislator make informed decisions
about criminal justice policy.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
Roger Warren, President
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
(757) 253-2000
www.ncsc.dni.us
The National Center for State Courts provides assistance to trial and appellate courts working to improve
administration practices at the state and local levels.
The center offers consulting services, studies court
processes, acts as a clearinghouse for exchange of
information on court issues and conducts conferences
and training courses.
PRETRAIL SERVICES RESOURCE CENTER
Alan Henry, Director
1325 G Street, NW
Suite 770
(202) 638-3080
www.pretrial.org
The Pretrial Services Resource Center is a national
clearinghouse for pretrial information. The center
also provides technical assistance and consulting
services for justice officials and publishes a national
newsletter on pretrial policy.
NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVES
Jerome Miller, President
3125 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22305
(703) 684-0373
www.ncianet.org/ncia
The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
provides client-specific planning services, manages
sanctions, conducts research and provides technical
assistance to justice practitioners and policymakers.
THE SENTENCING PROJECT
Malcolm Young, Executive Director
514 Tenth Street, NW
Suite 1000
(202) 625-0871
www.sentencingproject.org
The Sentencing Project provides training and technical assistance on sentencing alternatives and engages
in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy
issues.
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director
1650 King Street, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 684-6100
www.statejustice.org
The State Justice Institute provides funds to state
courts, universities and organizations that provide
funds to state courts, universities and organizations
that provide judicial education and promotes refinement of sentencing practices.
303
CITIZEN AND ADVOCACY GROUPS
CAMPAIGN FOR AN EFFECTIVE
CRIME POLICY
Beth Carter, National Coordinator
514 10th St, NW
Suite 1000
(202) 628-1903
www.crimepolicy.org
The Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy is a
national coalition of criminal justice and elected offi cials who have called for "a rational debate on crime
and punishment." The campaign issues public policy
papers and works with the media and policymakers to
promote an understanding of effective criminal justice policies.
CENTER ON JUVENILE AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Vincent Schiraldi, President
1234 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite C1009
www.cjcj.org
The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice seeks to
reduce the use of incarceration as a solution to social
problems through the provision of direct services,
policy advocacy, public education and technical assistance to clients and agencies around the country.
THE CORRECTIONALASSOCIATION
OF NEWYORK
Robert Gangi, Executive Director
135 East 15th Street
New York, NY 10003-3596
(212) 254-5700
www.corrassoc.org
The Correctional Association of New York is an independent organization that advocates for correctional
reform in New York State prisons. The association
inspects correctional facilities, makes recommendations to the state legislature concerning prison management practices and advocates for greater use of
alternatives to incarceration.
304
DRUG STRATEGIES
Mathea Falco, President
1575 Eye Street, NW
Suite 210
(202) 289-9070
www.drugstrategies.org
Drug Strategies promotes more effective approaches
to the nation’s drug problems, and supports private
and public initiatives that reduce the demand for
drugs through prevention, education, treatment, and
law enforcement.
JUSTICE FELLOWSHIP
Pat Nolan, President
P.O. Box 16069
Washington, DC 20041-6069
(703) 904-7312
www.justicefellowship.org
Justice Fellowship promotes Biblically based principles of restorative justice that hold offenders accountable for their crimes and restore victims through restitution and reconciliation.
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
Millie Webb, National President
P.O. Box 541688
Dallas, TX 75354-1688
(800) GET-MADD
www.madd.org
Established in 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
is a nonprofit organization that strives to find effective solutions to drunk driving and underage drinking.
Through 600 chapters nationwide, MADD conducts a
variety of programs for youths and adults, offers
counseling and emotional support to victims of drunk
driving accidents and assists them in the criminal justice process.
NATIONALASSOCIATIONS OF
SENTENCING ADVOCATES
Gayle, N. Hebron, National Coordinator
514 Tenth Street, NW
Suite 1000
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org/nasa
The National Association of Sentencing Advocates
(NASA) works on behalf of defendants in both capital and non-capital cases to present mitigation information and sentencing proposals in criminal court.
NATIONAL TASC
Michael Link, President
1911 North Fort Myers Drive
Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 522-7212
National TASC (Treatment Accountability for Safer
Communities) is a membership organization of programs and individuals dedicated to the professional
delivery of case management and treatment services
to drug-involved offenders.
NATIONALORGANIZATION OF
VICTIMS ASSISTANCE
Dr. Marlene Young, Executive Director
1757 Park Road, NW
(202) 232-6682
www.try-nova.org
The National Organization of Victims Assistance
(NOVA) is a nonprofit, national organization that provides direct support to victims of violent crime and
offers referrals to those who need additional services.
INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES
NATIONALINSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
Morris L. Thigpen, Sr., Director
320 First St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20534
(800) 995-6423
(202) 307-3106
www.nicic.org/inst/default.htm
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is an
agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Prisons. NIC provides training, technical
assistance, information services, and policy/program
development assistance to Federal, State, and local
corrections agencies. Through cooperative agreements awards funds to support its program initiatives.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
INFORMATION CENTER
Dave Shenin, Director
1860 Industrial Circle, Suite A
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(800) 877-1461
(303) 682-0213
www.nicic.org
The NIC Information Center provides research assistance and document delivery for correctional policy
makers, practitioners, elected officials, and others
interested in corrections issues.
CORRECTIONS PROGRAM OFFICE
Larry Meachum, Director
810 7th Street, NW
(800) 848-6325
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo/
The Corrections Program Office was established
within the Office of Justice Programs to implement
the correctional grant programs created by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The programs administered by CPO are: the Violent
Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
Incentive Formula Grant Program (VOI/TIS), the
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State
Prisoners Formula Grant Program (RSAT), and
Facilities on Tribal Lands Discretionary Grant
Program.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL
POLICY DRUG POLICY INFORMATION
CLEARINGHOUSE
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
(800) 666-3332
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
Through a contract with the U.S. Department of
Justice, Drug Policy Information clearinghouse
makes available information on drug crimes. The
clearinghouse publishes reports and bibliographies
and provides current data on drug policy, drug violations, drug-using offenders in the criminal justice system and the impact of drugs on the administration of
the justice system.
NATIONALCRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFERENCE SERVICE
P.O. Box 600
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
www.ncjrs.org
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
under contract with the U.S. Department of Justice,
provides justice information. The service also publishes materials on prisons, corrections, law enforcement, resources for victims, juvenile justice and
AIDS among offenders.
305
306

Correctional Best Practices: Directors` Perspectives

Transcription

Similar documents

Rehabilitation Programs Division

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT

Forensic Corrections Services Brochure

Megans Law - Kern County Sheriff`s Office

Megan`s Law Brochure

KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

JAILS DIVISION

learn - NOLA to Angola

DPS Prisons

Innovations 2014 Conference Presentation FINAL