DQW1-5

chaearvie

NCJRS.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >DQW1-5

D E

RT M E

NT OF JUSTIC E

O F

F IC

OF J UST I C E PR

G R

A M

B J A

I J OJJ DP

S O

V C

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph

Innovative State and Local Programs

Programs in Correctional Settings: Programs in Correctional Settings:

Monograph

This document was prepared by the Justice Research and Statistics Association, under coop- erative agreement 95–DD–BX–K011, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse 1–800–688–4252

Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Programs in Correctional Settings: Innovative State and

Local Programs

MonographJune 1998 NCJ 170088

iii

Programs in Correctional Settings

Acknowledgments

This report is a product of a cooperative effort by the States and the Bu- reau of Justice Assistance (BJA) as part of the State Evaluation Develop- ment Program, which is coordinated by the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA).

The National Institute of Corrections and the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, contributed to the coordination and implementation of this workshop. A special thanks goes to Ida Halasz, Acting Chief, National Institute of Corrections; William Woodward, Direc- tor, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety; John Inmann, Program Administrator, Division of Criminal Justice, Colo- rado Department of Public Safety; Henry Solano, U.S. Attorney, District of Colorado; and George Epp, Sheriff, Boulder County, for delivering wel- coming addresses. Special acknowledgment is also due to the outstanding moderators of the working meeting: Ken Robinson, President, Correctional Counseling, Inc., and Nancy Shomaker, Manager, Technical Assistance, National Institute of Corrections.

The State Evaluation Development Program relies on the expertise of the States to ensure the success of workshops and publications. The following individuals contributed their knowledge and time to make the workshop and publication a success: Kathi Atkins, Planning and Grants Manager, Di- vision of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Jim Barbee, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections; Ruth Cardella, Researcher, New Directions for Families; David Dillingham, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Correc- tions; Gail Keil, Montana Board of Crime Control; Pat Scholes, Corrections Specialist, National Institute of Corrections; Andrew Tarsy, Consultant; and Beverlee Venell, Grant Coordinator, Criminal Justice Division, Oregon State Police.

The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document under the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. The following JRSA staff compiled and edited the information in this report under the supervision of Deputy Director Kellie J. Dressler: Tara L. O’Connor, Pro- gram Assistant; Marylinda Stawasz, Program Assistant; Andrea G. Richards, Program Associate; Terrylynn Coffin, Program Assistant; and Jason R. Lunsford, Intern.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. vii State and Local Programs in Correctional Settings Alabama: Jail Assistance Project .................................................................. 1 Colorado: Integration of Polygraph

Testing With Sex Offenders Program ...................................................... 7 Colorado: Juvenile Offender Substance

Abuse Treatment Project ........................................................................ 13 Colorado: Department of Corrections

Youth Offender System .......................................................................... 19 Delaware: Mentor Program, Inc. ............................................................... 25 Idaho: Ada County Jail Substance Abuse Program ............................... 29 Illinois: Department of Corrections

Sex Offender Treatment Program ......................................................... 33 Iowa: Centralized Substance Abuse

Assessment Project—Iowa Medical and Classification Center ............................................................................... 39

Iowa: Statewide Substance Abuse Program Coordination in Corrections ................................................. 45

Kansas: Chemical Dependency Correctional Counseling Program ........................................................ 53

Kentucky: Integrated Programming for Female Offenders ............................................................................... 59

Massachusetts: Stress Reduction and Awareness Training in Corrections and the Criminal Justice System ........................................................... 65

New York: Taconic Correctional Facility Nursery Program ....................................................................... 69

Ohio: Oriana House, Inc., Residential Treatment Services Program ............................................. 75

Oklahoma: Department of Corrections Enid Community Learning and Family Center .................................. 81

Oregon: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program .............................. 87 Pennsylvania: OPTIONS Women’s Therapeutic Center ....................... 93 Rhode Island: Discovery Substance Abuse

Treatment Program ................................................................................. 99 South Dakota: Corrections Substance Abuse Program ....................... 105 Wisconsin: Rock County Education and

Criminal Addictions Program ............................................................. 113 Wyoming: Department of Corrections

Honor Farm Wild Horse Training Program ................................................................................................... 121

vii

Programs in Correctional Settings

Introduction

This monograph reports the results of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) State Evaluation Development Program working meeting, Programs in Correctional Settings: Innovative State and Local Programs, held November 2–4, 1995, in Longmont, Colorado. The monograph was developed and written for the Bureau of Justice Assistance by the Justice Research and Statistics Association in coordination with the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Cor- rections Academy.

The working meeting brought together more than 60 State planners and local practitioners, as well as researchers, analysts, and law enforcement officers, who are involved in implementing or evaluating programs to improve the criminal justice system and their communities. This publication describes workshop presentations of programs in correctional settings that focus on im- proving the criminal justice system at the State and local levels. Although the programs are local in scope, they hold great promise for replication in other communities. The report seeks to aid that process by including important in- formation about the programs’ development and implementation.

The 21 programs discussed in this monograph are funded under the Byrne Formula or Discretionary Grant programs and were nominated as effective programs by BJA, the Byrne State Administrative Agencies, and local criminal justice program managers. Several have been evaluated exten- sively at the State and local levels by State and local criminal justice re- searchers and practitioners using BJA’s evaluation criteria and guidance. The results were reported at the Annual Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Conference and in other forums.

Programs in Correctional Settings

State and Local Programs in Correctional Settings

Programs in Correctional Settings

Alabama: Jail Assistance Project

Statement of the Problem Alabama is a rural State with few metropolitan areas. Because most local jails do not have the resources to develop proactive corrections programs, historically they have relied on outside agencies for technical assistance. Although the quality of the assistance is satisfactory, there is a need to shorten the length of time involved in producing reports and delivering technical assistance.

Alabama jails have been in crisis since the mid-1970s, when, in Pug v. Locke (1976), a Federal court order forbade the State prison system from accept- ing new inmates until its population no longer exceeded the rated capac- ity. The result was an instant backlog of State inmates in Alabama’s county jails. Overcrowding was exacerbated by the influx of drug offenders into jails, which caused small, local detention facilities to become permanent or semipermanent residences for felons with long-term sentences. The re- sponses to this crisis varied. Some local jurisdictions implemented addi- tional inmate programming, but others simply allowed the situation to continue. “Conditions lawsuits” were filed against many local jails, adding to the burdens on already overloaded systems.

Compounding the problem was Wyatt v. Stickney (1972), a court order that effectively deinstitutionalized the Alabama mental health system. Many hospitalized persons were released to community mental health systems ill equipped to deal with them. As a result, many of these persons were reinstitutionalized in local jails. Although the courts emphasized the least restrictive alternative for treatment of mentally ill citizens, those who found themselves bounced from the Alabama mental health system to the Alabama county jail system became victims of the “most restrictive alter- native,” with few or no resources to provide adequate care. This problem resulted in additional litigation against local jails, prompting the construc- tion of several new county jails.

In February 1992, several Alabama counties filed a class-action lawsuit against Alabama’s Commissioner of Corrections to force the removal of State-sentenced inmates from county jails, inmates for whom sheriffs re- ceive only $1.75 per day from the State for food. No per diem is provided for housing State inmates in county jails. The State court ordered the com- missioner to remove all inmates from county jails within 30 days of receipt of official transcripts.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The commissioner eventually was found to be in contempt of the order, but, acting under pressure from the court, reported compliance with the order on October 13, 1992. Nevertheless, the number of State inmates in Alabama county jails continues to grow, and the problem will persist until a better solution is found.

Meanwhile, an untenable nontreatment environment has been created for mentally ill inmates who continue to be held in Alabama county jails. The current waiting period for a forensic commitment bed is as long as 6 months, and the Alabama Department of Mental Health petitioned the Federal district court in 1992 to eliminate the standards of care established in Wyatt v. Stickney. That court ruled against the Department of Mental Health, but the department has since filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeal is successful, the Department of Mental Health could continue to send individuals to the “most restrictive alternative.”

The Alabama jail situation is compounded by several problems that con- tribute to the overall inability of the jails to house long-term State inmates, mentally ill inmates, or any other class of inmates other than those typi- cally confined to local detention facilities. Foremost among these problems is the condition of the State’s local jail facilities, which range in age from 10 to more than 100 years old. Some newer jails are ineffectively designed, and most of the State’s jail facilities are underfunded, understaffed, and undermanaged. Government entities responsible for funding the operation of local jails are often reluctant to invest in adequate staffing. Many still view the local jail as the fiscal stepchild of the county, even though Ala- bama law designates the operation of the county jail as the priority pre- ferred claim against the county.

The sheriffs of Alabama, through the Alabama Sheriffs’ Association, re- sponded to these problems with the Alabama Jail Assistance Project (AJAP). AJAP began operation on March 15, 1992, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) through the Law Enforcement Planning Division of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, and with financial contributions from the sheriffs of Alabama. Although the project currently employs a limited staff, it has gained widespread ac- ceptance through its provision of technical assistance in various forms to numerous county and municipal jails.

Goals and Objectives AJAP makes multifaceted technical assistance available to Alabama county and municipal jails at no cost. The project’s overall goal is to assist Ala- bama jails, particularly those with few resources, to cope with increasing demands for professionalism in their operations and to resolve both imme- diate and long-term problems.

Programs in Correctional Settings

AJAP’s objectives include:

❑ Provision of quick-response technical assistance.

❑ Provision of technical assistance geared to the specific needs of Alabama jails.

❑ Utilization of local resources to resolve local problems.

❑ Increased training for local jail officers.

Program Components Inspection and Evaluation AJAP has no authority to inspect and evaluate jail facilities, organizational structure, or programming. However, many such inspections and evalua- tions are conducted at the invitation of the sheriff or chief of police. Inspec- tions and followup reports focus on strengths and weaknesses of the system and recommend improvements. In most cases, the sheriff or chief of police forwards recommendations that require funding, with a request for implementation, to either the county commission or city council.

Training Providing training is an integral component of AJAP’s mission, and it is conducted through the University of Alabama Law Enforcement Acad- emy, which is charged by the Alabama Peace Officers Training Commis- sion with providing minimum standards for training Alabama law enforcement officers.

Although there are no legally mandated minimum training standards for Alabama jail officers, the academy provides a basic 80-hour jail manage- ment training curriculum. Training sessions are conducted at the academy or hosted by a local sheriff or chief of police. The academy conducts ap- proximately six training sessions annually, and participation has been excellent. Many departments now require their jail officers to complete the training, and a large insurance firm in the State pays training expenses for officers from jails enrolled in the policy.

AJAP staff members participate in all aspects of curriculum development and instruction. This participation helps to ensure that the training re- mains focused on the practitioner.

Policy and Procedure Development Most rural jails in Alabama have a great need for comprehensive policy and procedure directives. To meet this need, AJAP staff developed sample policy and procedure guidelines specifically for the State’s jails. Based on

Bureau of Justice Assistance

case law, the Alabama County Jail Standards, the Code of Alabama, and sound corrections practices, the guidelines assist local jails in developing policies that, while reflecting each jail’s unique operation, maintain consis- tency throughout the State.

Jail Design and Renovation In addition to serving as an adviser to the chief law enforcement official charged with operating the jail, AJAP serves as a consultant to the govern- ment funding agency charged with approving and funding the design and construction of new or renovated facilities. AJAP works with funding agencies in planning the development of new institutions, often saving the agency the expense of employing a private consultant. In this role, AJAP staff ensure that jail designs are staff- and cost-efficient and that they con- form to State standards.

Response to Litigation AJAP staff members are available on request to assist Alabama jail officials and their attorneys with litigation over jail conditions, suicides, medical services, and other issues. The AJAP staff function as consultants to jail of- ficers and their attorneys in developing and presenting a defense. For ex- ample, at the request of jail attorneys in the class-action lawsuit against the Alabama Commissioner of Corrections, and with the consent of the presid- ing judge, AJAP inspected seven Alabama prisons to determine whether space was being used adequately to house State inmates. The subsequent report indicated that space was available in the prisons and that more State inmates could be removed from county jails without interfering signifi- cantly with ongoing rehabilitation programs. The Alabama Department of Corrections is now using some of those recommendations to assist in re- moving State inmates from county jails.

Resource and Reference Service AJAP serves as a resource and reference service for Alabama jail person- nel. Sheriffs, chiefs of police, and jail administrators call AJAP staff with questions about the legality or appropriateness of an issue or planned ac- tion. AJAP provides a rapid telephone response, often followed by a letter or position paper addressing the issue. If needed, AJAP arranges onsite technical assistance.

New Issues AJAP serves as a broker for information on new issues relevant to Ala- bama jails. Information on issues such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Bloodborne Pathogens Rule, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and recent court decisions is disseminated to Alabama jail officials to inform them of the legal requirements for compliance.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Results and Impact Performance Measures Although AJAP’s success is based primarily on customer satisfaction, a number of quantitative measures have also been recognized. These mea- sures include:

❑ The number and outcome of lawsuits brought against local jails.

❑ The number of requests for AJAP’s policy manual.

❑ The number of officers trained.

❑ The number of service calls from local jails.

Implementation Problems and Successes The widespread need for the assistance provided by AJAP, the support of all State and local agencies affected, and the overall satisfaction with the project’s work have created a hospitable environment for the project’s implementation and daily operation. AJAP has been hampered, however, by its small staff, which currently is one individual, who is on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to respond to all of the State’s technical assistance needs. Due to limited resources, the project occasionally cannot respond to requests as quickly as it would like to, nor can it devote large blocks of time to a single local need. However, by providing jail personnel with training and knowledge, AJAP cuts down on redundant calls and often refers calls to other jails that have solved similar problems.

Successes and Accomplishments In the more than 5 years it has been in operation, AJAP has become a valu- able asset to local corrections jail systems in Alabama and has laid a strong foundation for addressing the increasing demands overburdened jails will face in the future. AJAP has raised awareness of the complexities and needs of local jails throughout the criminal justice system. As a result, local jails are increasingly viewed as an integral part of the system. Whenever possible and appropriate, AJAP provides immediate technical assistance upon request. Formal applications and a waiting period for approval have been eliminated. Having AJAP as a resource has made local jail officials feel more comfortable about requesting technical assistance because they know that assistance will be geared to their needs and will be sensitive to local issues.

AJAP training has increased professionalism among local jail officers, and this professionalism has resulted in more statewide involvement in organi- zations such as the American Jail Association. The Alabama Jail Associa- tion has been developed as a professional organization for Alabama’s jail practitioners. AJAP has played an important role in the development of an

Bureau of Justice Assistance

informal network of jail officials throughout the State. Some jail officials, particularly those in rural areas who have been isolated in the past, have been able to network with other jail officials and develop informal partner- ships to enhance professional growth.

From the project’s inception in March 1992 through August 1997, AJAP provided training to nearly 2,000 local jail officers. The demand for train- ing will continue because of the high turnover of local jail officers and the continuing climate of litigation. AJAP, in conjunction with the American Jail Association, will provide sheriffs with specialized training on jail legal issues in the near future. AJAP also has provided a sample policy and pro- cedure manual to each Alabama sheriff and to numerous other jail offi- cials. The manual is especially beneficial to rural jails with few resources for developing such documents. Additionally, AJAP has worked with ar- chitects to improve the design of new jails and with numerous attorneys involved in jail litigation.

AJAP’s efforts have been recognized by members of the Federal judiciary, and AJAP’s staff person has been appointed as a mediator and monitor in jail litigation.

Prospects for Replication Prospects for replicating AJAP are good if the program has strong backing from two key elements: a supporting organization with a vested interest in the operation of local jails and a cooperative and innovative State grantor agency. In addition, the project should be operated by staff with a back- ground in law enforcement and corrections and include adequate clerical support.

Contact Information Michael W. Haley Director of Jail Services Alabama Sheriffs’ Association 514 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104–4385 Phone: 334–264–7827 Fax: 334–269–5588

Programs in Correctional Settings

Colorado: Integration of Polygraph Testing With Sex Offenders Program Statement of the Problem The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) estimates that the recidivism rate of sex offenders is 60 percent. In 1983, more than 400 paraphiliac sex offenders were studied under a Federal certificate of confidentiality. The study determined that, on average, each sex offender committed 44 crimes per year. In an effort to enhance public safety, corrections systems are looking for ways to reduce recidivism and safely reintegrate sex offenders into the community. Programs that combine offense-specific treatment, specialized supervision and monitoring, and polygraph examination show the greatest promise in reducing recidivism.

Although the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) administers offense-specific treatment and specialized supervision for sex offenders, prior to this project it did not have the capability to administer polygraph tests to them. From October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1997, 242 incarcer- ated sex offenders in the State were released from prison to parole, 249 dis- charged their sentences, and 54 were released through other means. The majority of these offenders were released directly into the community without specialized supervision or polygraph examination.

Goals and Objectives The goal of the Integration of Polygraph Testing With Sex Offenders Pro- gram is to reduce the recidivism of sex offenders by enhancing treatment and supervision through the use of polygraph examinations. The following are the program’s objectives:

❑ Develop and establish a polygraph policy for CDOC inmates and parolees.

❑ Establish a baseline and 6-month monitoring polygraph testing pro- gram for inmates in the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) Phase II Therapeutic Community and for inmates and parolees under Risk Assessment Management (RAM) community supervision and Approved Treatment Provider (ATP) programs.

❑ Establish a research and evaluation plan to document program partici- pation, effectiveness, and outcomes. Use this information to develop national research products.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Provide technical assistance and in-service training annually to SOTP clinicians, community agents, and parole officers to ensure effective program management.

❑ Establish a statewide list of polygraph specialists who meet ATP’s standard criteria to conduct the testing program.

❑ Increase by 10 percent the number of sex offenders receiving commu- nity or parole placement before their discharge into the community.

❑ Collaborate with the Colorado Board of Parole on the use of poly- graphs as a treatment and supervision tool.

❑ Increase public safety by reducing by 10 percent the rate of reoffending by sex offenders in community or parole placement.

❑ Increase by 50 percent the number of sex offenders receiving polygraph examinations while on parole and in community corrections.

❑ Establish specific standards for polygraphers on the ATP list.

❑ Conduct a baseline and 6-month followup polygraph examination of approximately 90 sex offenders in Phase II of SOTP, 110 sex offenders on parole, and 20 sex offenders in community corrections.

Program Components Institutional Use The polygraph test is utilized during Phase II of SOTP. An initial baseline test is administered at 3 months, with periodic followup tests as clinically appro- priate. The polygraph test is integrated into Phase II by explaining it in the Phase II Treatment Contract. The Phase II Treatment Contract is signed by the offender prior to enrolling in Phase II. The polygrapher is considered a mem- ber of the Phase II treatment team and has access to clinical records and im- pressions. This role is clarified in the treatment contract.

Prior to each polygraph test, the inmate is given an Informed Consent Form that explains that (1) DOC employees are required to report to the Department of Social Services any child abuse that has taken place within the past 10 years and any specific information indicating prior or current child sexual abuse; (2) information about new crimes or Code of Penal Dis- cipline (COPD) violations committed between polygraph tests will be re- ported to the proper authorities; and (3) information obtained from the polygraph test will be forwarded to parole officers and community correc- tions agents in a report or personal change contract.

Offenders who exhibit deception on their test but do not admit the decep- tion are subject to a retest, group sessions regarding the results of the ex- amination, and identification of the areas of deception on reports and/or

Programs in Correctional Settings

personal change contracts that are forwarded to parole officers and com- munity corrections agents.

Acknowledgment of reoffending COPD violations during the pretest and posttest interviews on a periodic exam will result in reports to the proper au- thorities, group discussion and termination from treatment, if appropriate, and revision of the inmate’s relapse plan and personal change contract. Of- fenders who refuse to take a polygraph exam are terminated from treatment.

Community Corrections Use The polygraph test is used by community corrections as a treatment/ supervision tool. All sex offenders receive periodic polygraph tests. Sex of- fenders who have not previously taken baseline tests are required to do so while in community corrections. Offenders who deny their crime or are not participating in treatment are viewed as high risk and tested more frequently.

The polygraph test is a condition of a community corrections placement. All inmates sign a Release of Information Form to release CDOC case ma- terial to the polygraph examiner. Each inmate is required to sign an In- formed Consent Form. Offenders who are deceptive on polygraph tests are subject to increased supervision, treatment, and repeat testing. They are not regressed solely on the basis of a finding of deception on a polygraph exam. Upon determination of deception, and when there is no admission of reoffense or violation, the following steps may be taken: retesting, in- creasing collateral contacts, increasing surveillance and informing law en- forcement as appropriate, electronic monitoring, detention (including home detention), and remediation.

When an inmate admits during the pretest or posttest interview to a reoffense or violation, a report is made to the proper authorities. The in- mate is then charged with a COPD violation, transferred to a more secure facility, and electronically monitored. Refusal to take a polygraph test may result in the filing of Code of Penal Discipline charges.

Parole Use The polygraph test is used by parole officials as a treatment and supervi- sion tool. All sex offenders receive periodic polygraph tests. Sex offenders who have not previously taken baseline tests are required to do so while on parole. Offenders who deny their crime or are not participating in treat- ment are viewed as high risk and tested more frequently.

Because the polygraph test is a condition of parole for sex offenders, all parolees must sign a Release of Information Form to release CDOC case material to the polygraph examiner. Parolees must also sign an Informed Consent Form. Offenders who are deceptive on polygraph tests are subject to intensified parole supervision and treatment and repeat testing. Parole will not be revoked solely on the basis of a finding of deception on a

Bureau of Justice Assistance

polygraph exam. Upon a determination of deception, and when there is no admission of reoffense or violation, the following steps may be taken: re- testing, referral to the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), increasing col- lateral contacts, increasing surveillance and informing law enforcement‘ and electronic monitoring.

When parolees admit during the pre- or posttest interview that they com- mitted an offense or violation while on parole, the proper authorities are notified, and an arrest is made when appropriate. If there is no revocation, ISP and electronic monitoring are considered. A parole complaint is filed when an offender refuses to take a polygraph test.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The program has had an impact on the Colorado criminal justice system in the following areas:

❑ Identifying offenders’ risk areas, which contributes to improving personal change contracts (relapse prevention plans); imposing more stringent parole conditions; authorizing parole plans and limiting contact with the victim pool; implementing community supervision plans; selecting an approved treatment provider; and notifying law enforcement.

❑ Tracking the number of offenders receiving treatment.

❑ Increasing parole of sex offenders contingent upon their receiving treatment, enabling the Parole Board to have more knowledge of the offender’s history and a more effective monitoring tool for parole.

❑ Increasing public safety by detecting technical parole violators earlier and removing them from the community before they reoffend.

❑ Incorporating knowledge about sex offenders into law enforcement training and victim treatment programs.

❑ Sharing information on the treatment and supervision of sex offenders with the board of the Sex Offender Treatment Program, which sets treatment and monitoring standards for the Colorado criminal justice system.

Implementation Problems and Successes The Colorado Board of Parole is unlikely to parole sex offenders. This project offers a safer method to monitor sex offenders in institutions, in community corrections, and on parole. An important question is how to handle the disclosure of past crimes during polygraph testing. CDOC is

Programs in Correctional Settings

consulting with sex crime prosecutors to obtain recommendations for re- porting past crimes.

Successes and Accomplishments The program, which began in October 1995, has achieved several objec- tives. Criteria for polygraph examiners have been established, and five qualified polygraph examiners have been contracted to provide services. Parole officers, SOTP staff, and polygraph examiners have received train- ing on both the program and cultural diversity, and the State attorney general’s office is reviewing the program policy for final approval. The Colorado Parole Board has met with the program’s staff to exchange ideas and address concerns, and staff members have shared information with police departments on individual behavior patterns. Data forms have been developed, and sexual history questionnaires are in use. In addition, staff have met with a research consultant to develop and plan data collection. Polygraphing of all sex offenders receiving treatment is now mandatory in Colorado.

Prospects for Replication This project could be replicated by other corrections departments in con- junction with sex offender treatment programs, community corrections halfway house systems, and parole divisions. Any polygraph testing pro- gram should consider using experienced and knowledgeable polygraph providers, having all procedures and personnel in place before initiating the program, employing a rotating schedule of polygraph examiners, and structuring examinations in ways that prevent offenders from becoming too aware of the procedure.

Contact Information Peggy Heil Bonita McKee Director Program Administrator Sex Offender Treatment Division of Adult Parole Supervision Program Colorado Department of Corrections Colorado Department 10403 West Colfax, No. 700 of Corrections Lakewood, CO 80215 P.O. Box 1600 Phone: 303–238–5967, ext. 16 Canon City, CO 81215–1600 Fax: 303–238–0176 Phone: 719–269–4506 Fax: 719–275–2859

Programs in Correctional Settings

Colorado: Juvenile Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Project Statement of the Problem There is a significant and serious gap in the system of care for substance- abusing youth in Colorado’s juvenile detention facilities. Despite a large body of evidence documenting the high incidence of substance abuse among juvenile offenders and the relationship between substance abuse and criminal activity, no treatment is offered to youth in secure or nonsecure detention alternatives. For 4 years, surveys on substance abuse conducted at Zebulon Pike, the El Paso County youth detention facility, have identified substantial numbers of youth in need of substance abuse treatment and intervention, yet these results have never resulted in the provision of treatment services. The following data from Zebulon Pike illustrate the extent of the problem:

❑ Of 1,173 surveys on substance abuse administered to youth in deten- tion in 1996 by the Detention Services for Juveniles (DSJ) program, 275 scored high, indicating substantial dysfunction and im mediate need for treatment, whereas 286 scored in the middle range, indicating immedi- ate need for intervention.

❑ A survey of Zebulon Pike residents (150 questionnaires) yielded the fol- lowing information: 41 percent indicated that they use marijuana often, 39 percent indicated that they use alcohol often, and 9 percent indicted that they use hard narcotics often. (Not all respondents answered every question.)

❑ Of youth designated serious habitual offenders, more than 46 percent are known to have substance abuse issues.

❑ At least 536 juvenile arrests in 1992 involved drugs, alcohol, or both.

The Juvenile Offender Substance Abuse Treatment (JOSAT) Project was de- veloped to address the problem behind these numbers. JOSAT targets youth brought to detention whose score on a substance use survey (given as part of each youth’s intake assessment by detention staff) indicates a need for further assessment and educational and/or treatment alternatives. It is critical for the rehabilitation of these youth that their substance abuse treatment needs be ad- dressed. Most adolescents have not “bottomed out” like their adult counter- parts, many of whom have lost their jobs, families, finances, and health. With appropriate treatment and support, adolescents can recover. If they can be reached, they have the ability to heal.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Goals and Objectives JOSAT was created to help the large number of juvenile offenders who abuse alcohol and other drugs as part of their criminal activities. Its goals are to:

❑ Provide thorough case management and aftercare for juvenile offend- ers with substance abuse problems.

❑ Decrease substance abuse by achieving at least a 60-percent decrease in substance abuse among treated youth after 3 months.

❑ Reduce recidivism by achieving a 70-percent decrease in recidivism among youth after 3 months.

❑ Decrease the population of youth in secure detention by annually treating in the community 25 youth who previously would have been detained.

To establish these priorities, the following objectives were set:

❑ Assess the treatment needs of all juvenile offenders.

❑ Recommend community-based treatment, rather than detention, when- ever possible.

❑ Meet the treatment needs of assessed juvenile offenders through indi- vidual and group counseling as part of a program model that adheres to accepted standards of practice.

❑ Establish linkages with case management services provided by the DSJ program.

❑ Develop an appropriate followup plan to take effect upon release from detention or discharge from DSJ.

❑ Develop a committee to plan for continued funding before the project’s original grant expires.

Program Components All youth brought to Zebulon Pike are assessed by DSJ. Part of the assessment includes a substance use survey. Youth scoring high or at the high end of the middle range are referred to JOSAT. Scores are turned over to two Colorado- certified drug and alcohol counselors who conduct further assessments and complete written treatment recommendations for referred youth. (Both coun- selors are employees of the El Paso County Health Department, which pro- vides weekly clinical supervision and a training budget.) From this point, linkages between JOSAT Project staff and youth are established through the case manager and meet the specific requirements of the Federal Regulations of Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records.

Programs in Correctional Settings

There are two treatment options for youth recommended for treatment. In conjunction with the DSJ case managers, the possibility of pretrial release into the DSJ program is considered. If the youth meets criteria for community-based services, with a specified level of supervision, a JOSAT Project treatment component is recommended to the court. If the court agrees, participation in the project becomes a condition for release. For these youth, group treatment sessions are offered three times a week at Workout, Ltd., the component of DSJ that supervises released youth. Weekly individual sessions are scheduled as required. In addition, drug testing by urinalysis may be used with youth receiving such treatment.

Youth remaining in secure detention at Zebulon Pike participate in weekly educational groups scheduled within the center’s educational curriculum and taught by JOSAT counselors. Individual counseling is also available through a recommendation after intake assessment and with the youth’s consent. Followup treatment is available for appropriate youth upon re- lease from detention. However, unless mandated by court order as a con- dition or parole or release, followup treatment is voluntary.

In all cases, the needs of the families are considered. If further services are necessary for and desired by families, project staff, Workout, Ltd., and/or DSJ case managers work together to make the most appropriate referrals and assist them with suggestions.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The JOSAT Project measures its impact using statistical data, self-reports, and community and agency feedback and input. Statistics are kept on the number of youth originally assessed as appropriate for the project and the number of youth leaving detention with treatment as a condition of release.

The overall decrease in secure detention population due to the project is computed. Self-report inventories at 3-month intervals measure decreases in drug and alcohol use and recidivism. When youth agree to a release of information waiver, such data are collected from or verified by officials such as probation officers and case managers. An oversight committee consisting of collaborating agencies, probation officers, and local law en- forcement personnel reviews the information and offers feedback on how the program could be improved.

Implementation Problems and Successes Implementation of the project was delayed for approximately 4 months due to the participating agencies’ difficulty in developing and maintaining a collaborative relationship. However, once these agencies fully under- stood the project and its implementation plan, the process proceeded smoothly. The project’s ability to use programs already in place was partly

Bureau of Justice Assistance

responsible. Drug and alcohol screening had been conducted by DSJ staff for 4 years before the JOSAT Project’s inception, and court officials’ full support of the project led to their immediate approval of treatment recom- mendations as part of release conditions.

A continuing problem for the project has been finding an effective ap- proach to followup treatment for youth who are appropriate for treatment but not released to a supervised facility. Unless followup treatment is or- dered by the court, JOSAT counselors have no power over youth. As a result, they often have no outside incentive or encouragement to take advantage of treatment opportunities. JOSAT counselors are working with probation and parole agents to encourage them to emphasize continued substance abuse treatment when working with youth in need of assistance.

Successes and Accomplishments For the first time, a concrete connection has been found between the project’s survey results and further assessment and treatment in both de- tention and the community. This advance is significant in that it allows the system to respond to the needs of youth and their families. During the project’s first 2 years, 404 juvenile offenders were treated. In addition to having access to services, all detained youth were provided with substance abuse education. In total, more than 1,600 youth have benefited from the program.

Other accomplishments include:

❑ A decrease in the population of Zebulon Pike Detention Center.

❑ Thorough case management and aftercare for substance-abusing juvenile offenders.

❑ A decrease in substance abuse by treated youth.

❑ A decline in recidivism among treated youth.

❑ The creation of a funding committee.

Prospects for Replication Replication of JOSAT is possible if commitment and resources for collabora- tion exist in the community. Elements contributing to smooth implementation are:

❑ Broad-based support by the justice system.

❑ Collaboration with nonsecure detention facilities, the State’s social ser- vices agency, probation departments, and group homes to accommo- date the aftercare needs of youth released from detention.

Programs in Correctional Settings

❑ Full-time detention staff working to administer and score drug and al- cohol screening assessments and distribute them to project counselors. (Counselors can also perform assessments, but only of youth admitted during the hours they are at the facility.)

❑ Facilities for treatment and educational sessions at secure and non- secure detention centers.

❑ A project evaluator and oversight committee to track and evaluate project strengths and weaknesses.

❑ The contribution of local cash matching funds by participating agencies.

❑ Policies and procedures for regular staff training and supervision.

❑ A plan for future funding to ensure the project’s continuation.

Contact Information Mercedes Harden Director McMaster Center for Alcohol and Drug Treatment El Paso County Department of Health and Environment 301 South Union Boulevard Colorado Springs, CO 80910 Phone: 719–578–3153 Fax: 719–578–3182

Programs in Correctional Settings

Colorado: Department of Corrections Youth Offender System Statement of the Problem In summer 1993, the Governor of Colorado initiated a 14-point plan for a Colorado Partnership Against Violence. Given the significant problem of youth violence, specifically violence involving weapons, in Colorado and throughout the Nation, a major facet of the plan called for the creation of an innovative program to address youth violence. In response, the Colo- rado Department of Corrections (CDOC) developed and presented the Youth Offender System (YOS) program to the Governor and to the Colo- rado General Assembly. The program was passed into law on September 13, 1993, and received its first commitments in March 1994.

YOS targets youthful offenders (14 to 18 years of age at time of offense) who have been convicted as adults of a violent, weapons-related offense (class 3 through class 6 felony) or who are designated as chronic youthful offenders. As appropriate, the court suspends the adult sentence on condi- tion that the offender complete a 2- to 6-year determinate YOS commit- ment. Throughout the sentence, the court retains jurisdiction and can sentence the offender to adult CDOC or order probation if he or she does not benefit from YOS. Additionally, CDOC retains authority to recom- mend to the court that an unmanageable or intractable youth be trans- ferred by revocation to adult CDOC. Revocation results in the institution of the suspended adult sentence, which is typically significantly longer than the YOS sentence.

Goals and Objectives The mission of YOS is to provide youthful offenders with a controlled and regimented environment that affirms the dignity of one’s self and others, promotes values of work and self-discipline, and develops useful skills and abilities through an enriched, needs-based, phased program. The pro- gram also seeks to provide strict but supportive aftercare to prepare of- fenders for positive community reintegration.

YOS has developed the following objectives:

❑ Provide effective intervention for youth offenders who are not career criminals now but would likely become career criminals or more seri- ous offenders without intervention.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Provide staff models and mentors who promote the development of socially accepted behavior and attitudes.

❑ Create a daily regimen that occupies youth offenders in physical train- ing, strict discipline, education, work, and meaningful social interac- tion while providing appropriate security and discipline.

❑ Develop an environment of positive peer support and influence that promotes behavioral change.

❑ Provide diagnosis, treatment, and program services (including counseling; substance abuse education and relapse prevention; academic, cognitive, prevocational, and vocational education; and placement assistance) that enable the offender to pursue a course of lawful and productive conduct upon release from legal restraint.

❑ Teach self-discipline by providing clear consequences for behavior.

❑ Reinforce offenders’ use of cognitive behavioral strategies that change criminal thinking and teach problem-solving skills that serve as alter- natives to criminal activity.

❑ Enhance education, self-care, and parenting skills to improve life-role functioning.

❑ Support offenders’ development of employment skills.

❑ Reduce offenders’ gang involvement and replace gang principles with values accepted by the community.

❑ Reduce criminal recidivism.

❑ Reduce substance abuse among offenders.

❑ Enable offenders to develop and internalize positive behavioral norms.

❑ Increase offenders’ participation in services to establish and maintain program gains.

❑ Give offenders a “second last chance” to learn and develop positive self-concepts and the value of service to others.

Program Components YOS is multifaceted, providing core programming to all offenders and addi- tional individual options to meet offenders’ special needs. An intake, diagnos- tic, and orientation (IDO) phase is followed by three program phases.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Intake, Diagnostic, and Orientation Phase Typically 1 month in duration, this phase sets the stage for participation in YOS. The intake process establishes the foundation for assessing indi- vidual offender characteristics and developing an individual program plan. The subsequent comprehensive diagnostic process, led by a multi- disciplinary YOS team, results in an integrated and individualized pro- gram plan designed to maximize positive change.

Throughout the IDO phase, all youth, when not involved in orientation or diagnostic activities, are subject to a highly structured regimen based on the traditional military boot camp model. Emphasizing group discipline and group incentives, this regimen establishes the attitudes and behaviors needed to participate effectively in the positive peer culture and program- ming that characterize Phase I.

Phase I. This phase provides intensive residential programming in a se- cure facility for 8 months to 4 years and 8 months, depending on the deter- minate sentence. Phase I uses a functional unit approach within the context of positive peer culture. Each unit (up to 16 residents) serves as a small community in which incentives, negative consequences, and peer pressure are used to discourage antisocial thinking and behavior and replace them with prosocial behavior. Each resident participates in a core program, which emphasizes academic education, cognitive restructuring, and prevocational and vocational education. Each youth also participates in supplementary programs tailored to his or her program plan. Phase I is staffed by multidisciplinary teams, with each team member sharing in the responsibilities of security, discipline, education, treatment, and behavior modification. Staff are chosen for their ability to mentor, coach, train, and counsel effectively within these domains.

Phase II. A 3-month transition program that supports the progress made in Phase I, this phase establishes the basis for reintegration into the com- munity in Phase III. This phase offers a diversity of program components, including education, life skills, and prevocational training, and engages resident in development of a Phase III plan that encompasses living ar- rangements, education, employment, community service, and other indi- vidual needs.

Phase III. A 3- to 9-month community reintegration program, this phase gradually decreases supervision intensity while increasing positive pro- gram participation, progress toward defined objectives, and prosocial community involvement.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Results and Impact Performance Measures Infrastructures being established to measure outcomes of all phases of YOS will serve a vital function in examining the program’s effectiveness. Data will be collected on screening, assessment, diagnosis, program services, reentry to the community, community followup, and 5-year followup. Outcomes, which will be obtained from offender interviews and clinical assessments, will include relapse into criminal behavior, gang member- ship, and drug and alcohol dependence; the provision of restitution to vic- tims; and psychological, social, and physical impairment. Primary goals of the YOS evaluation component are to:

❑ Determine the program’s effectiveness in reducing criminal behavior, arrests, and commitments to CDOC.

❑ Examine the cost effectiveness of the program relative to the costs of institutional commitment and community supervision.

❑ Assess offender progress over the course of YOS in skills development, emotional functioning, and motivation.

❑ Evaluate the community adjustment of YOS offenders in employment, involvement in treatment, and use of community services.

❑ Identify offender characteristics that predict positive outcomes during and following YOS to determine whether program assessments and interventions are provided as intended and according to curriculum program manuals and other program provider guidelines.

❑ Examine changes in YOS over time.

Seeking to develop thorough and well-founded research and evaluation approaches, YOS has established liaisons with agencies and organizations, including local universities and other criminal justice agencies, that have recognized experts in the field. In addition, the YOS evaluation program plan includes a range of established procedures and instruments.

Implementation Problems and Successes There have been numerous challenges for the many agencies and individu- als who are stakeholders in YOS. While implementation problems have, in large part, been similar to those experienced by other programs with non- traditional systems, they have been magnified in scope and intensity be- cause the unique features of YOS extend beyond its immediate legislative, judicial, and correctional environments. YOS has broken new ground na- tionally. Intensive education and communication have been used success- fully to facilitate stakeholders’ understanding of the program’s mission, goals, objectives, and methodologies; to ensure consistency with the pro- gram plan and legislative intent; and to secure and enhance staff skills.

Programs in Correctional Settings

In addition, intensive efforts have been required to maintain qualified and experienced staff that meet the programmatic requirements of YOS. Posi- tion classifications suited to other employment settings, including the adult CDOC, are not suited to YOS. Although efforts are under way to de- velop more appropriate classifications, time delays in bringing a full staff on board have made it difficult to implement the entire YOS program. Through patience and persistence, however, YOS has filled nearly all of its staffing needs with dedicated individuals who are qualified to deliver the program’s diverse program components.

The development of information collection, storage, analysis, and retrieval infrastructures to support accountability, program evaluation, and other vital monitoring functions has challenged limited staff resources. Tradi- tional systems have been found to have limited utility within YOS, making it necessary to modify existing systems or develop new ones. A number of basic systems are currently in place and will provide a sound foundation for future enhancements.

YOS requires the delivery of highly diversified program components, and securing established curriculums of a level, scope, depth, and length suited to the YOS population and environment initially posed problems. How- ever, due to substantial investigatory efforts, virtually all major and most supplementary program components have been implemented.

Finally, integration of the YOS program phases has presented challenges. A comprehensive program spanning initial incarceration in a highly secure and structured environment through community placement and supervi- sion is central to the program’s success. Strong, positive liaisons spanning program phases have been established and continue to facilitate effective redirection.

Successes and Accomplishments YOS is innovative in concept and in development. The program integrates components and approaches that research and experience have demon- strated to be among the most promising in redirecting the lives of young and violent offenders. By continually improving its effectiveness by devel- oping quality assurance, process, and outcome evaluation components, the program ensures that it is not only effective but dynamic. To date, the pro- gram has accomplished the following:

❑ In 1994, legislation modified the YOS sentencing structure, establishing the program as a sentencing alternative for chronic youthful offenders who meet specified criteria.

❑ YOS has attracted nationwide attention as a model program.

❑ Funding has been secured and contracts finalized to provide Phase I housing and programming for all Phase I females and for males ex- ceeding the 96-bed capacity of the current YOS facility. The project’s new facility opened in 1997.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ As of May 1997, the total YOS youth population stood at 272. Of those youth, 228 were in Phase I, 15 were in Phase II, and 29 were in Phase III.

❑ Drug and alcohol education and relapse prevention, cognitive restruc- turing, and postsecondary education programs have been developed, with emphasis on vocational education and job-readiness preparation.

Prospects for Replication By legislative mandate and program commitment, YOS is actively estab- lishing the foundations for rigorous quality assurance, program evalua- tion, and research with the intent of identifying the extent to which YOS supports the effective redirection of youthful offenders toward healthy, productive behavior. The results of these efforts will be used to guide deci- sions about program replication and to facilitate replication by providing clearer definitions of the YOS program and its components.

Contact Information Noble Wallace Director, Phase I Youthful Offender System 10900 Smith Road Denver, CO 80239–8006 Phone: 303–375–2900 Fax: 303–375–2909

Programs in Correctional Settings

Delaware: Mentor Program, Inc. Statement of the Problem Nationally, a high proportion of women return to prison within their first year of release. Female offenders state that they lack role models and have more obstacles to overcome than men. Participants interviewed expressed very low self-esteem and found no support system upon release. Less than 50 percent have their general equivalency diploma or high school diploma, and most lack marketable skills.

Women stated that they had so much anger and pain that it was hard for them to function from day to day. It was this pain and anger that drove them to dependency on alcohol or other drugs, and to maintain their use of alcohol or drugs they resorted to stealing and prostitution. Other women were so involved in abusive relationships with men that if their partners did not beat them, the women thought they did not love them. These women believed they deserved this type of relationship because they had experienced physical, mental, or sexual abuse as children.

Goals and Objectives The goals of the Delaware Mentor Program (DMP), Inc., are to reduce, through a self-awareness program, the number of women who return to prison within their first year of release, develop a support system for their transition into the community, and help female offenders compete in and contribute to society.

The objectives of the program are to secure funding and office space, re- cruit a board of directors, secure 501(c)(3) status, develop a self-awareness program, hire an executive director and a Phase I coordinator, recruit pro- fessional presenters from the community, recruit women to be mentors, develop a postgraduate phase, and raise awareness through the news me- dia, public appearances, and special events.

Program Components A 19-member board of directors conducts the business affairs of the pro- gram and oversees finances. The board meets monthly to review accom- plishments and develop goals for the future. All program participants are volunteers. During preenrollment interviews, participants discuss why they want to change and their willingness to do so. Guidelines for comple- tion of the course are discussed, and participants are given control over

Bureau of Justice Assistance

their future choices. They understand that they are accountable for their actions from this time forward. All mentors are selected from the commu- nity. They may be graduates of the program with the stipulation that they have resided successfully in the community for a year. The program has three components.

Phase I. A self-awareness program designed to allow female offenders to discover who they are and understand how their anger and pain dictates their behavior, Phase I consists of 48 to 53 2-hour workshops over 13 weeks. The workshops are offered in five categories: self-actualization, re- lapse prevention, relationships, preparation for employment, and educa- tional opportunities. After Phase I is completed, many participants move to work release or remain incarcerated while participating in the post- graduate phase.

Postgraduate Phase. Designed to help graduates of Phase I determine indi- vidual recovery paths, this phase offers participants the opportunity to under- stand and change patterns of behavior. The group meets weekly for 2 hours and represents DMP in special events. Sessions are open to residents who have graduated from Phase I until their release from prison. Because they are considered role models for the entire prison population, participants’ behav- ior and willingness to work on personal issues are a top priority.

Education and Recruitment. Whenever possible, the executive director and graduates of DMP who are in the community speak to organizations and par- ticipate in special events. The program is supported by the University of Dela- ware, Delaware Technical and Community College, and local corporations and organizations. Members of these organizations serve as presenters, men- tors, or board members, and all volunteer valuable time and services.

DMP expects graduates to change the way in which they interact in society. The women get involved in support organizations such as Alcoholics Anony- mous and women’s counseling groups, and they seek to increase their educa- tional levels by obtaining a general equivalency diploma or high school diploma or attending college. Instead of applying for minimum wage em- ployment, graduates seek positions that offer career advancement.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Women in the program are tracked through the criminal justice system, and data are updated once a year. Within the coming year, data will be re- leased relating to graduates’ housing, education, and employment. Other performance measures include the number of successful graduates helped by the program, recidivism rates, and degree to which participants have separated themselves from negative home environments after release.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Implementation Problems and Successes DMP’s success has been supported through the efforts of the warden and staff of Delors J. Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution (DJBWCI). An important factor has been the program staff’s willingness to work as a team with the corrections and judicial systems to help women offenders become contributing members of society.

Successes and Accomplishments The program’s accomplishments include:

❑ Becoming a 501(c)(3) organization with a full board of directors that meets monthly.

❑ Obtaining four offices and a reception area at DJBWCI.

❑ Obtaining funding for an executive director and a Phase I coordinator.

❑ Completing 15 Phase I classes.

❑ Analyzing and presenting recidivism results.

❑ Securing a Federal grant and State contracts.

❑ Receiving positive reviews by media, including television and newspapers.

❑ Receiving enthusiastic support from the DJBWCI warden, who has ob- served a noticeable change in demeanor among program participants.

❑ Increasing the ability of the program’s graduates to make choices to improve themselves after release from prison by working on core issues, to consider halfway houses instead of returning to destructive past relationships, and to set goals to ensure a secure future.

❑ Creating and implementing a transition phase for women offenders after release from prison.

❑ Receiving the Governor’s Outstanding Volunteer Award in 1996.

As of June 1996, 170 women had graduated from the Delaware Mentor Program and left the institution for the community. In addition, 15 partici- pants who did not complete the program left the program before that date. First-year recidivism rates for graduates and all participants were 21.8 per- cent and 22.2 percent, respectively, compared with the 1989 baseline rate of 39.5 percent. Marsha Miller, a statistical consultant and past chair of the program’s board of directors, follows all clients through the criminal jus- tice system and provides updated statistics yearly.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Prospects for Replication DMP can be replicated in any female institution. Teamwork among the corrections staff, the judicial system, and the community is essential to provide the support incarcerated women need to heal their anger and pain and become productive citizens.

Contact Information Linda Forshey Executive Director Delaware Mentor Program, Inc. P.O. Box 11524 Wilmington, DE 19850 Phone: 302–577–3004 Fax: 302–577–5849

Programs in Correctional Settings

Idaho: Ada County Jail Substance Abuse Program Statement of the Problem Crime in Idaho is connected to drug use and abuse. The most recent statis- tics indicate that 46 percent of arrests in Ada County are directly connected to drug or alcohol use. Of all arrests involving drugs, 90 percent are for methamphetamine (speed). In the Pacific Northwest, use of methamphet- amine is on the rise. Within the past 2 years, use of the drug has risen 400 percent in the region.

Generally, inmates with a drug or alcohol problem are treated in State pris- ons, not in local or county jails. State prisons incarcerate inmates for longer periods than do local jails, and they are typically better funded. Most prison inmates have a record of several arrests and periods of incarceration prior to serving State prison time, and most have served at least one stint as a county jail inmate before becoming a State prison inmate. To stop the drug/crime cycle before drug-abusing offenders reach this point in the criminal justice system, training and education must be offered to them earlier in the process.

Goals and Objectives If drug abuse among young first- or second-time offenders can be reduced, the incidence of crime will decrease. Waiting until offenders are incarcer- ated in the State prison system makes achieving this outcome extremely difficult. The mission of the Ada County Jail Substance Abuse Program is to reduce the use of drugs and alcohol by offenders who are sentenced to incarceration at the local level. Incarceration is an excellent time to provide education and group treatment to offenders. The program provides short- term treatment and, upon release, refers the offender to a community agency for followup treatment.

Program Components The 4-week coed program employs 1 full-time instructor to teach approxi- mately 16 inmates, who are in class 30 hours each week. Male and female inmates are housed separately. Participants are encouraged to study to- gether and discuss their assignments with inmates from previous sessions.

The program’s administrative assistant screens applicants and assigns in- mates to upcoming sessions. A psychologist, who serves as the program’s administrative head, coordinates program activities and designs the sta-

Bureau of Justice Assistance

tistical evaluation. The program’s first-year budget was funded entirely through a Federal grant. For the second year, one-third of the budget was funded by inmates. Over the next 2 years, inmates assumed 100 percent of program costs.

Inmates participate in the program either voluntarily or by court order. In- mates must be compliant, be sentenced to time in the county jail, be able to live in a dormitory setting, and have ties to the local community so that upon release they can be tracked and placed in aftercare. Inmates must have no pending charges and no convictions for violent felonies. Offenders are removed from the program if they proposition or are rude to one an- other.

Upon admission to the program, inmates sign contracts in which they agree to comply with all jail rules and staff instructions, attend the pro- gram voluntarily, attend at least 1 year of followup outpatient alcohol and drug treatment after release from jail, stay in contact with the program's staff for 1 year following release from jail, involve their families in follow- up treatment and provide them with followup information, and live in the community after release.

After a contract is signed, the inmate’s substance abuse is evaluated and a treatment plan is created. Services offered by the program include indi- vidual and group counseling, 12-step programs, and classes on relaxation and meditation, legal matters, education, health and nutrition, addiction, financial issues, social and family dynamics, spirituality, communication skills, sexuality and gender issues, relapse prevention, and vocational re- habilitation. Female inmates are treated in separate counseling sessions.

In aftercare, which is paid for by inmates, the program links offenders with an aftercare program in the community. Jail staff help inmates make reser- vations in the aftercare program and perform followup interviews with in- mates and their families after inmates have been released.

Ada County has also created a program in which offenders go to work, live at home, and attend mandatory classes at the jail. Urine analyses are conducted during their visit, and offenders may be held overnight in the jail if their urine analysis reveals substance abuse.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The program was designed with the minimum expectation that graduates will stop using illegal drugs or alcohol or will use them less frequently. It is also expected that graduates will be arrested less frequently. Following release from custody, inmates are contacted by the administrative assistant every 3 months to ensure that they are attending classes and counseling

Programs in Correctional Settings

sessions according to their treatment plan. To measure the program’s im- pact, jail staff periodically check the local criminal database to determine if program graduates have been arrested and, if so, whether the arrest is re- lated to drug use.

Implementation Problems and Successes The program’s most significant problem during implementation was lack of classroom space due to overcrowding in the jail. The situation was rem- edied, however, when a break in the influx of inmates to the jail created ex- tra space.

Successes and Accomplishments Early in 1997, staff determined that they needed access to statewide crimi- nal records to compare the program’s recidivism data with that of other jail substance abuse programs. (For the study, recidivism was defined as an arrest, within a 12-month period after release, that led to a conviction.) Nationally, recidivism for offenders charged with drug-related crimes is 50 to 80 percent.

Prospects for Replication The program’s prospects for replication are excellent. Its essential elements are simple: an instructor, an administrative person, inmates, classroom space, educational materials, and security staff.

In addition, these factors are critical:

❑ Inmate payments to help cover program costs.

❑ Linkage to aftercare following inmate’s release from jail.

❑ Program instructors with backgrounds that enable them to connect with inmates.

❑ Selection of inmates appropriate for the program. Special consideration should be given to inmates from the local community, enabling staff to track them following release from custody.

❑ Involvement of the inmate’s family.

❑ Emotional and financial cooperation of inmates.

❑ Training for jail security staff.

❑ Support from local judges. The placement of an inmate on probation following release from custody is highly correlated with the inmate’s participation in programs after release.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Contact Information Lieutenant Michael Laky Housing Section Commander Ada County Sheriff’s Office 7200 Barrister Drive Boise, ID 83704 Phone: 208–377–6609 Fax: 208–377–7316

Programs in Correctional Settings

Illinois: Department of Corrections Sex Offender Treatment Program Statement of the Problem Sexual victimization is becoming prevalent throughout the Nation. Studies have revealed that at least one in five children experience at least one inci- dent of sexual victimization. Rape is fast becoming one of society’s most plaguing problems. Unfortunately, the frequency of sex crimes is widely believed to be seriously underestimated. Victims of child molestation, rape, incest, and other sexual crimes suffer immediate trauma and serious long-range effects. To respond to this crisis, the State of Illinois found it imperative to explore the application of recently developed therapies to reduce criminal behavior that causes such suffering.

The goals of incarceration include both punishing the offender and pro- tecting society. For sex offenders, punishment alone too often is unproduc- tive and increases their pathology, leaving these individuals with fantasies more deviant than those prior to incarceration. Treatment specialists have discovered that such fantasies directly influence sex offenders’ actions upon release, as demonstrated by their high rate of recidivism. Research indicates that sex offenders who are denied treatment have between a 50- and 85-percent chance of reoffending, but the odds can be radically re- duced through intensive, broad-ranged therapy. Estimates provided by current research indicate that graduates of sex offender treatment pro- grams have only a 15-percent chance of reoffending. A Vermont study on the cost effectiveness of sex offender treatment concluded that treatment saves taxpayers money. For each offender, treatment programs cost one- fifth of prosecuting and sentencing another sex crime. The Illinois program will pay for itself if it prevents one in five offenders from reoffending. However, the cost of victimization alone would seem to justify treatment.

In response to sexual victimization, the need to treat sex offenders, and the available research, the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) imple- mented a comprehensive sex offender treatment program devised by a committee of representatives of all operational divisions in the agency, in- cluding clinicians experienced in sex offender treatment. In January 1992, with funding from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, IDOC established its first residential treatment unit for sex offenders and began creating a pilot sex offender treatment program for parolees.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Goals and Objectives The primary mission of the IDOC Sex Offender Treatment Program is to reduce, through treatment, the number of sexual offenses committed each year and thereby the number of victims of sexual offenses. For the pur- poses of the program, sex offenders are those inmates committed under the sexually dangerous persons law and those who have been criminally convicted of a sexual offense but deemed mentally ill. The program ad- dresses the needs of sex offenders through the following objectives:

❑ Offer programs on sexual orientation for a large population of sex offenders.

❑ Identify inmates who need intensive, specialized attention.

❑ Provide intensive residential treatment that includes the elements de- termined by researchers and experts to be critical to the treatment of sex offenders.

❑ Provide a monitoring system for offender compliance with treatment upon release.

Program Components Nonintensive Sex Offender Programming Although technically not a component of the Sex Offender Treatment Pro- gram, nonintensive programming is critical to its success. Of the 26 adult correctional facilities (maximum, medium, and minimum) that are cur- rently part of the program, 24 offer sex offender orientation treatment or educational/therapeutic groups, and all of the facilities offer a combina- tion of 59 supportive treatment groups. The objectives of these programs are to:

❑ Educate offenders on contemporary sex offender treatment.

❑ Break down offenders’ fears concerning treatment.

❑ Facilitate positive attitudes toward treatment.

❑ Dispel myths surrounding treatment.

❑ Motivate offenders to seek intensive treatment.

❑ Increase offender awareness of the impact on victims.

Initial Assessment This component was developed to provide the program with a uniform and systematic method of identifying and encouraging qualified inmates to invest in their rehabilitation and recovery through intensive sex

Programs in Correctional Settings

offender treatment. To be accepted into the program, offenders are required to submit an application and to be interviewed by a mental health profes- sional. A sex offender data collection survey is completed on the applicant’s offenses, victim history, background, and mental health history. From this in- formation, an offender’s condition and motivation level can be determined. Offenders must also complete a self-report on their behaviors.

If, based on the self-report and the mental health professional assessment, an offender is chosen for the program, he or she must sign a contractual agreement that spells out the program’s requirements.

Intensive Residential Treatment Having agreed to the contract, offenders are sent to one of three intensive residential treatment units currently available in IDOC. In this therapeutic environment, therapists assist offenders through a phase-based system that focuses on retraining arousal patterns, sex education, relapse preven- tion, and victim empathy. Throughout the phases a variety of recognized treatment techniques are applied. For example, inmates develop disgust for their deviant behavior through correct sensitization, satiation therapy, and noxious odor aversion. After deviant sexual arousal patterns have been reduced, misconceptions and irresponsible attitudes related to sexual activity are dealt with in a group setting. Group psychotherapy techniques are used because they are less costly and more effectively recognize and deal with participants’ denials and evasions of responsibility. Because most offenders lack social skills, the group is designed to be a laboratory for learning responsible community living skills. Groups focus on victim- ization issues, relaxation techniques, learning to assert rights without be- ing aggressive, getting a more realistic view of the world, sex education, and covert conditioning of disgust for deviant sexual acts. Additional treatment is provided through psychoeducational modules on a variety of themes, modern psychophysiological assessment procedures, and indi- vidual support sessions as needed.

An offender’s progress from one phase to another is not necessarily based on his or her ability to recite the information presented, but rather on the offender’s conceptualization, assimilation, and application of the informa- tion in accordance with the program’s primary motto, “No More Victims.” Graduation criteria include developing a high level of victim empathy, identifying and recognizing one’s deviancy, identifying relapse conditions and preventing relapse, understanding the concept of honesty with oneself and others, and developing a plan for moving successfully through life.

Parole Monitoring The final element of the program combines a strong parole component with monitoring of ongoing outpatient treatment. Thus far, it has been success- fully implemented in one region of the State. All sex offenders, whether or not they complete intensive residential treatment, are given the opportunity

Bureau of Justice Assistance

to continue their treatment during parole. A case manager meets with an in- terested offender 6 months before release to determine treatment needs. Af- ter the offender is released, the case manager provides referrals and monitors (with the assistance of the parole agent) the offender’s compliance with treat- ment objectives.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Evaluations of the program’s performance are based on the following measures:

❑ The number of inmates enrolled in the program.

❑ The number of inmates who complete the program.

❑ The recidivism rate of those who complete the program.

In 1993 and 1994, two extensive annual evaluations of the program were conducted. The results of external audit development are as follows:

❑ 1995—Conducted a survey/program audit of Adult Division out pa- tient care counseling and support group services within the 26 adult facilities.

❑ 1996—The survey/program audit was expanded to the Community Services and Juvenile Divisions.

❑ 1995 to Present—Documentation was added to the survey/program plan that monitors monthly the racial makeup of the intensive program participants.

Implementation Problems and Successes Training. Mental health professionals, facility counselors, and Pre-Start (parolee) agents at designated facilities received training from well-known clinicians throughout the Nation, and with the opening of each inpatient program, the importance of training became apparent. In the training, mental health professionals expressed legitimate concerns about interact- ing with and treating sex offenders in a therapeutic environment, and some expressed feelings of disgust and personal bias against the target population. Many sought assistance on performing in a professional man- ner, given these conditions. A psychoeducational manual was developed and distributed to all mental health professionals and support staff. This manual helped mental health administrators and counselors better prepare their facilities for treating sex offenders.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Clinician Relationships. Administrators of the intensive residential pro- grams found that relationships between offenders and sex orientation treatment providers were much stronger than expected. They, therefore, engaged in intense recruitment, stressing to both offenders and clinicians that nonresidential treatment could only go so far and that the residential program was in the best interest of the offender. By educating the parties about the exact nature of the program and encouraging participation, ad- ministrators were able to resolve this initial problem.

Waiting Lists. Overcrowding in the facilities and the high percentage of sex offenders seeking treatment made waiting lists for the program inevi- table. However, program administrators discovered that by making of- fenders more accountable for their actions, double celling was possible, thereby reducing waiting lists. Those still remaining on the waiting list were provided continuing sex orientation programming.

Racial Imbalance. Early on, a significant racial imbalance in program participation (approximately 75 percent white and 25 percent African- American) was noted. A number of factors creating this imbalance were cited, including African-Americans’ traditionally negative attitudes to- ward government-sponsored treatment programs. In response, referral processes were implemented, and sex orientation programs worked to address some of the issues causing the imbalance.

Voluntary Programming. At present, all of this initiative’s group and intensive sex offender treatment programs are voluntary. However, policymakers and clinicians from outside the facility are calling for the program to be made mandatory. Currently, the only incentive to join the program is each offender’s desire to receive treatment. Most program par- ticipants are honestly asking for help and are highly motivated to change. Administrators indicate that requiring the program for all sex offenders would destroy its therapeutic and productive atmosphere, creating an en- vironment in which an undercurrent of rebellion and disruption, as well as significant breaches of confidence, would exist. To dissuade this call for mandatory participation, administrators are learning that these problems will make successful implementation of a sex offender program difficult.

Community Reaction. Community reaction, frequently an issue of concern when correctional programs strive to “treat” offenders, has not been a problem for this program. The program has avoided negative community reaction by maintaining a low but accountable profile. Interviews are given to provide information to a curious, skeptical, and concerned public.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Successes and Accomplishments Since its implementation in 1992, the Sex Offender Treatment Program has accomplished the following:

❑ Approximately 2,200 sex offenders have participated.

❑ Enrollment in intensive residential treatment has increased from 150 to 250 inmates.

❑ The program has increasingly utilized risk assessment scales to mea- sure participants’ success.

❑ Six regional training/certification symposiums will be held in February 1998. Invited participants include community-based providers of treatment to sex offenders under the custody/control of IDOC; IDOC mental health professionals who treat sex offenders at IDOC adult and juvenile facilities and IDOC community-based sex offender treatment programs; and IDOC staff responsible for the direct supervision of sex offenders.

Prospects for Replication Since the pilot program began in 1992, the Sex Offender Treatment Pro- gram has been duplicated at two other Illinois facilities, and IDOC is ex- ploring ways to expand the program. Factors to be considered regarding the program’s replication include:

❑ Training that reduces judgmental or biased treatment of sex offenders.

❑ Education throughout the criminal justice system about the nature of the program.

❑ Voluntary participation.

Contact Information Linda Dillon Superintendent Training Academy Illinois Department of Corrections 1301 Concordia Court P.O. Box 9277 Springfield, IL 62794–9277 Phone: 217–522–2666, ext. 6605 Fax: 217–522–2666, ext. 6602

Programs in Correctional Settings

Iowa: Centralized Substance Abuse Assessment Project—Iowa Medical and Classification Center Statement of the Problem Many offenders entering the prison system have drug or alcohol problems. Although all of Iowa’s correctional facilities provide some level of sub- stance abuse treatment, no actual substance abuse assessments were made in the past. Because of this, recommendations for treatment were not al- ways made in a consistent manner. Certain programs had long waiting lists, whereas others were not used to capacity. Inmates with very different treatment needs were often referred to the same program.

In 1993–94, a research and demonstration project undertaken by the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC); the Iowa Department of Public Health, Division of Substance Abuse and Health Promotion (IDSA) and Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP); and the Mid-Eastern Coun- cil on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) led to the establishment of a centralized substance abuse assessment unit at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center (IMCC). Iowa employs a centralized assessment model in determin- ing placement and treatment needs of inmates entering the prison system. Upon arrival at IMCC, inmates undergo medical, educational, and psycho- logical testing as well as a reception interview. The information gathered is used to determine the inmates’ appropriate risk level and appropriate treatment modalities.

Goals and Objectives The three primary goals of the centralized assessment project are to assist in decreasing criminal recidivism and substance abuse; expedite inmates’ movement through the institutional system, allowing the most advanta- geous use of treatment resources; and evaluate the effectiveness of refer- rals made by the assessment unit.

Objectives of the project include:

❑ Assessing all inmates entering IMCC with a 10-year or less sentence.

❑ Referring inmates to the appropriate level of substance abuse treatment.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Updating each inmate’s treatment summary record on the DOC auto- mated information system to enable institutional classification teams and the parole board to make appropriate decisions.

❑ Providing training for institutional treatment staff on how to use the assessment instrument.

❑ Maintaining communication to ensure that the assessment unit is making appropriate clinical and placement decisions.

❑ Establishing a database to collect demographic information and out- come effectiveness information.

❑ Implementing the program’s database.

❑ Producing data reports summarizing treatment needs, referrals, and types of treatment recommended.

❑ Assisting DOC in determining future types of treatment programming.

Both institutional and community treatment providers review data reports to determine the need for treatment revision or development.

Program Components MECCA developed its assessment tool using the criteria contained in the IDSA’s standardized assessment form, but revised it to reflect the charac- teristics of both the prison population and the treatment available in the institutions. To understand treatment needs and resources, MECCA and IMCC staff visited all treatment programs in Iowa correctional facilities. These visits helped to open lines of communication between assessment staff and treatment staff. Close supervision of the assessment process has ensured consistent treatment recommendations.

The key elements of the project are reception, evaluation, classification, and placement. During the reception period, inmates are interviewed by the IMCC assessment staff, who compile substance abuse evaluations ac- cording to standards set forth by IDSA. These evaluations form the basis for recommending the most appropriate treatment for inmates during their time in the institution and upon release. Treatment recommendations are considered by the classification manager in light of the risk posed by the inmate and all information from the inmate’s psychological and educa- tional profiles. The inmate is then placed in the most appropriate institu- tion for the risk and needs indicated. In the first year of the project, the substance abuse assessment frequently resulted in placement decisions for inmates that differed from those of past years.

Each institution has a classification team. Upon arrival, and then periodi- cally throughout incarceration in the institution, each inmate’s case is re- viewed by the classification team to determine appropriate physical and

Programs in Correctional Settings

programming placements. Specific recommendations for substance abuse treatment have been integrated into each team’s decisionmaking process.

Iowa’s State parole board is an autonomous entity. No other department or office has jurisdiction over or influence on the parole of inmates. The pa- role board receives all inmate information through its computer system. The treatment summary section of this system contains the recommenda- tions from the assessment unit. The parole board can then expedite the re- view of inmates who are placed in treatment. The parole board has been very supportive of the project and has helped DOC determine the pre- dicted parole review dates of inmates in the target population, helping classification staff prioritize the placement of inmates into limited treat- ment resources.

Inmates who are released from prison to community-based correctional (CBC) programs such as work release or parole are often expected to be in- volved in some level of substance abuse treatment. The centralized sub- stance abuse assessment is forwarded to the CBC program for use by community-based substance abuse treatment providers.

For the past 5 years, DOC has submitted data indicators to the Governor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse (GASA) regarding the nature of substance abuse needs in the inmate population. Without specific substance abuse assessment, these indicators are at best approximations. Aside from report- ing indicators, data on offender treatment needs can suggest how treat- ment resources should be allocated and how to match offenders to treatment approaches that are likely to be effective. The creation of a data- base of treatment records, maintained within Federal confidentiality guidelines, is essential to the success of the program. At present, most data collection and reporting is accomplished through manual compilation supplemented by an existing, limited database system; however, the pro- gram is in the process of becoming automated.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The program measures its performance using these indicators:

❑ Equal utilization of all treatment programs and facilities.

❑ The length of the waiting lists for admission into treatment programs.

❑ The number of individuals assessed.

❑ The level of interagency cooperation between MECCA and DOC staff.

❑ Demographic information.

❑ Type of treatment recommendations.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Results reported in the project’s annual report.

❑ Identification of drug abuse trends.

❑ Collection of data that identify use patterns, relapse issues, and treat- ment needs.

Implementation Problems and Successes As with any new project, the assessment unit had to overcome obstacles during the project’s implementation. Startup of the project was delayed by contract negotiations, hindering the ability of the assessment unit to meet its first-year goal of 1,500 assessments. The problem was resolved when GASA approved an increase in the assessment staff for the last 3 months of the fiscal year.

When the first evaluations began arriving at the institutions for review by the classification teams and treatment staff, there were cases in which the institutional staff disagreed with the recommendations of the assessment team. This issue was resolved by establishing better communication be- tween institutional and assessment staff. Institutions are expected to follow the MECCA recommendation unless they have a significant reason to sug- gest an alternative. If another suggestion is made, MECCA staff are con- sulted. If clinical agreement cannot be reached, the IMCC treatment director and the DOC substance abuse coordinator are consulted to make the final decision. To prevent disagreements, MECCA staff have been fa- miliarized with prison treatment programs so that they are better versed in the services available. Since the implementation of these two actions, few assessment recommendations have been disputed.

Another coordination problem, which has always been difficult to solve for the institutions, is the need to predict how much of the inmate’s sen- tence will be served before the parole board will review his or her case. This information is required to ensure that inmates are treated as close as possible to the time of release, increasing treatment efficacy and establish- ing community aftercare resources. The problem has been resolved some- what through planning meetings with the coordinator, treatment director, and parole board. The board has given DOC a list of sentence types and likely sentence lengths. The greatest variable to this planning is inmate be- havior, but a starting point now exists for determining when it is appropri- ate to place an inmate in a treatment program.

Successes and Accomplishments Much of the project’s success can be credited to the positive and support- ive working relationship between MECCA and DOC. In general, inmates have cooperated with the evaluation project. Recommendations have been based on consistent criteria and have been well received and followed by DOC staff. The initial project size has doubled, providing the opportunity

Programs in Correctional Settings

for an increasing number of inmates to participate in substance abuse as- sessment. Waiting lists in treatment programs have decreased, and for- merly underutilized programs are now operating at capacity. Discussions are under way on how to fill gaps in treatment provision, including re- lapse prevention services and residential treatment at minimum security institutions. The project has provided a clear picture of the drastic increase in methamphetamine use in the State and identified unique problems ac- companying the increase. Although there is a desire to increase data collec- tion capabilities, the current system has provided valuable and relevant information, and this information has been used at a variety of program- ming and policymaking levels. To enhance data collection, this project has been awarded an additional GASA grant for the purchase of personal com- puters and software.

More than 1,300 substance abuse assessments were provided by MECCA during the project’s first year. In FY 1996, 2,800 assessments were con- ducted. In FY 1997, the number increased to 3,500.

Prospects for Replication The primary factor in the Centralized Substance Abuse Assessment Project’s success was the cooperation of multiple systems and disciplines. If this level of cooperation can be duplicated, projects of this type in other jurisdictions should be able to achieve similar results. In Iowa, substance abuse assessment was integrated into DOC’s existing structure of central- ized classification, making the assessment process compatible with the en- vironment in which it is used. Finally, the willingness of all participants to learn from one another, to be flexible, and to be innovative has ensured a comprehensive and consistent approach to treatment provision.

Contact Information Lowell Brandt Marie Havel Treatment Director Clinical Supervisor Iowa Medical and Mid-Eastern Council on Classification Center Chemical Abuse P.O. Box A P.O. Box A Oakdale, IA 52319 Oakdale, IA 52319 Phone: 319–626–4473 Phone: 319–626–2391 Fax: 319–626–6641 Fax: 319–626–6641

Programs in Correctional Settings

Iowa: Statewide Substance Abuse Program Coordination in Corrections Statement of the Problem Substance abuse in the Iowa correctional system is a widespread and com- plex problem at every level of the system. The State’s community-based corrections (CBC) and institutionalized corrections populations are satu- rated with substance abusers—70 to 80 percent of CBC clients use drugs, as do 80 to 85 percent of prison inmates. These populations are growing quickly and are too large for effective correctional management, let alone management of complicating factors such as substance abuse. Iowa correc- tional institutions currently oversee nearly 6,000 inmates in space designed for 3,600. Iowa’s prison population has grown 12 percent annually for the past 3 years, and resources for providing substance abuse treatment are ex- tremely limited.

An adversarial relationship exists between the State’s CBC and community- based substance abuse treatment providers, even though community treat- ment programs receive 65 percent of their referrals from CBC. Community- based treatment providers have not responded to requests for proposals to establish substance abuse treatment programs in prison settings.

At the time this report was written, the State of Iowa had contracted with an outside organization to establish managed care for all substance abuse services in the public sector. Conventional managed care strategies often exclude certain clients in prison populations from admission or readmis- sion to needed services. The criteria for exclusion often fall dispropor- tionally on the CBC population.

Most significantly, dealing effectively with substance abuse among offend- ers requires dealing with the complexities of the criminal mind—its dual- ity (substance abuse and criminal/antisocial personality characteristics), resistance to treatment, and chronic, long-term dependence on numerous substances. In Iowa, virtually all substance abuse programs for offenders were designed for noncriminal clientele. Few treatment resources existed for substance-abusing offenders.

These problems limit:

❑ The availability of treatment.

❑ Staff tolerance of criminal-addict behavior, resulting in the early dis- charge of many clients who have finally accessed treatment.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Communication and coordination between CBC, institutions, and community treatment providers.

❑ The efforts of the criminal justice system and community substance abuse programs to rehabilitate mutual clients.

Goals and Objectives The main goal of the Iowa Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Program Coordinator is to work with wardens, CBC district directors, the Department of Public Health’s Division of Substance Abuse and its man- aged care contractor, community-based substance abuse agencies, the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes (TASC) program, and the Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation. More specifi- cally, the program is designed to:

❑ Evaluate and define the extent and nature of the substance abuse prob- lem among offenders.

❑ Establish a discriminating assessment process that matches chemically involved offenders to the most effective treatment.

❑ Develop treatment approaches that are more likely to have an impact on resistant, extrinsically motivated clients.

❑ Work with the managed care contractor to advocate that criminal justice clients be admitted to and retained in treatment and to promote that the contractor use treatment modalities and levels of care that are effective for this population.

❑ Identify new and existing modalities of treatment that will offer several tiers of treatment at varying levels of intensity within the criminal jus- tice system.

❑ Ensure that qualified individuals operate substance abuse programs.

❑ Identify and pursue additional funding while maintaining present resources.

❑ Coordinate the communication network among institutions/CBC, the Iowa Division of Substance Abuse, and public/private community treatment agencies.

Program Components The program is designed to coordinate available interventions as well as de- velop new interventions to meet the needs of offenders with substance abuse problems. The program seeks to reduce the likelihood that offenders will con- tinue criminal behavior after their release from the criminal justice system.

Programs in Correctional Settings

The program is administered by a coordinator within the Administration Division of the Department of Corrections. His duties include working closely with all Iowa State correctional institutions, the eight CBC districts, all TASC programs, the Governor’s Substance Abuse Prevention and Edu- cation Council, the Drug and Violent Crime Commission, the statewide and eight local corrections/substance abuse task forces, the Division of Sub- stance Abuse in the Iowa Department of Public Health, the Iowa Board of Substance Abuse Certification, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the Criminal Justice Branch in the U.S. Department of Health and Hu- man Services, community-based substance abuse treatment agencies, and the Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The program’s expected results include:

❑ Networking the eight TASC programs statewide.

❑ Establishing a licensed substance abuse treatment program in each of the State’s eight correctional institutions.

❑ Improving communication and coordination between CBC and com- munity substance abuse staff and reducing service duplication.

❑ Implementing new approaches to substance abuse treatment in correc- tional programs.

❑ Improving the qualifications of counselors currently working in correc- tional treatment programs to serve as substance abuse counselors.

❑ Reducing waiting lists for substance abuse treatment.

❑ Realizing cost benefits for all parties involved.

❑ Responding to requests for proposals for funding to facilitate these goals.

The overall expectation was that the treatment system for criminal justice clients would improve; gaps in programming would close; adversarial staff of other programs would work together; and these programs would better accomplish their missions.

Implementation Problems and Successes The biggest obstacle to program implementation dealt with conflicts be- tween community corrections and community substance abuse staff over fundamental treatment issues: the effectiveness of substance abuse treat- ment for offenders; whether offenders’ paramount problem was mental

Bureau of Justice Assistance

illness, behavioral maladaptation, criminality, immorality, or a primary disease; where and by whom the offender would be most effectively treated; and how resources should be distributed. As a result, the groups’ common purpose was overlooked and treatment in the State’s prisons suf- fered. The conflicts led to the formation of a task force through which the program coordinator, with the Director of the State Division of Substance Abuse, established a plan of action to resolve disputes between community corrections and substance abuse staff.

Adding to the difficulties, shortly after implementation, State budget cuts and layoffs reduced the size and number of treatment programs in State prisons, lowered staff morale, and reduced the operating budgets of pro- grams not specifically targeted by the cuts. During the coordinator’s first 9 months on the job, funding and staffing levels in prison treatment pro- grams dropped dramatically. However, none of the treatment programs closed, and all of the State’s original programs eventually expanded be- yond their initial capacity. At the time of program implementation, 4 of the licensed programs were funded at 75 percent of capacity through grants. However, through the lobbying efforts of the coordinator and the pro- grams’ good reputation, all were funded by State appropriations when their grants expired.

The State personnel system, which handles all State employees, further complicated implementation. Although substance abuse professionals are commonly considered to be clinical staff with specific education and train- ing needs, the personnel department felt that these requirements were un- necessary, resulting in a severely deficient applicant pool from which the program was required to interview and hire. Official protests did not im- prove the situation, but merely delayed filling positions by 6 months. Institutions anxious to fill vacancies often rushed to hire unqualified indi- viduals. Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement in effect for em- ployees at the institutions prohibited the coordinator from changing minimum qualifications listed for substance abuse professionals. In re- sponse, the coordinator enlisted the support of the Governor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse and the Director of the State Division of Substance Abuse to encourage the Iowa Department of Personnel to establish a new “ad- vanced “ substance abuse professional position that would apply only to corrections institutions and require applicants to be certified by the Iowa Board of Substance Abuse.

The current challenge to the program is managed care. Iowa is in the process of moving to private managed care for all publicly funded substance abuse treatment. Concerns over the use of a managed care system revolve around three issues: Will resistant and unmotivated clients be able to access treat- ment? Will people with a history of multiple treatment experiences be able to access treatment? Will there ultimately be a cost shift from publicly funded community-based treatment to jail- and prison-based treatment?

Programs in Correctional Settings

Successes and Accomplishments The program has achieved numerous advances in substance abuse treat- ment for offenders in Iowa. Although these advances were facilitated by the coordinator, they are largely due to the efforts and cooperation of the key agencies involved.

Savings. The time offenders spent on waiting lists for substance abuse treatment dropped from 6 months to 1 week, and the centralized coordina- tion of the program resulted in significant financial savings for the system. Both aspects made the system more user friendly for offenders.

The 5-Year Plan. The coordinator created a publication, The Role of Sub- stance Abuse Treatment in Corrections, that discusses the duality of criminal- ity and the disease of addiction, and how they work together in the chemically addicted criminal. The document proposes that the initial course of action for the correctional system must be to establish a seamless continuum of intervention for offenders.

The Joint Business Plan. The Department of Corrections and the Division of Substance Abuse developed a business plan to resolve numerous shared issues and needs. The majority of the goals listed in the business plan were accomplished.

Centralized Assessment. The first step in achieving a continuum of inter- vention in the Iowa prison system was establishing a centralized assess- ment process at the reception center. With this new process, the classifi- cation manager has information on the substance abuse treatment needs of inmates before they are classified and assigned to an institution. Inmates can be matched to the most appropriate treatment based on their history, risk level, and so on. Future funding requests for centralized assessment has been built into the State’s budget request process.

Institutional Treatment. Four prison-based treatment programs existed when the coordinator program was implemented. There are now seven li- censed treatment programs—one at each of the State’s general population institutions. These programs include a variety of approaches to treatment as well as varying levels of intensity. Six of the programs were initiated through grant funding. Through the lobbying efforts of the coordinator, all seven programs are now funded by State appropriations.

Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes Program. When the coordinator program began, the TASC program had been piloted in three of the State’s eight judicial districts. TASC has since expanded into a $1.2 million state- wide program using grants the coordinator helped to secure and became the largest substance abuse pilot project ever approved for funding by the Iowa legislature.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Coordination is a key element of the TASC program. Each judicial district is autonomous, with its own director and board of directors. The coordina- tor established a TASC accreditation process through which resource utili- zation, productivity, and program outcome are evaluated every 2 years. Because the Department of Corrections controls the funding for TASC, the individual programs must comply with accreditation standards to con- tinue operating. The coordinator holds quarterly meetings with TASC supervisors and annual or biannual meetings with all TASC staff. The pro- gram has been well received by the State’s justice and substance abuse treatment systems.

Violator Program. Two institutions in Iowa house male and female viola- tors of probation/parole and work-release program rules. The coordinator was asked to design and implement a culturally sensitive program, known as the Violator Program, to serve these institutions. The program, which provides offenders a 60-day residential stay followed by a 5- to 8-month community-based program, combines substance abuse relapse treatment with cognitive skills programming. At the 30-bed institution for women, the program includes the core subjects described above as well as a num- ber of services specific to women. The 75-bed men’s facility also offers services that are gender specific. The Violator Aftercare Program is the community-based portion of the effort, providing close community moni- toring and weekly group sessions. The sessions are offered for 20 weeks, but can be extended on an individual basis. A 4-year, grant-funded evalua- tion by the Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evalua- tion has recently been completed. Results are not yet available.

Counselor Training Program. When the coordinator program began, a number of counselors working in Iowa’s correctional substance abuse treatment programs were not sufficiently qualified for their positions. Per- sonnel issues and the policy of promoting correctional officers to correc- tional counselors had produced these staffing inadequacies. To address the training needs of staff members, the coordinator implemented a program to prepare staff for Correctional Substance Abuse Counselor Certification (IBSAC). The program offers 120 of the 130 hours required for certification, forcing staff members to obtain some training from outside sources. Many of the 30 counselors who participated in the program received counselor certification.

Prospects for Replication The prospects for replicating this program are excellent. Every State has key agencies similar to those in this project, and prior interagency cooperation is not a prerequisite. No precedent for such cooperation ex- isted in Iowa before this program was implemented. The program’s ap- proach is a relatively inexpensive way to leverage additional resources for correctional substance abuse and to maximize resources already in place. Support from corrections personnel, administrators, and an advisory

Programs in Correctional Settings

group to help establish priorities for substance abuse intervention develop- ment will enhance the program’s success. The coordinator should have ex- tensive experience in the substance abuse intervention field, negotiating skills and the ability to be both diplomatic and assertive, strong writing skills and experience applying for grants, and good training skills.

Contact Information Darlene Baugh Community Corrections Service Representative Iowa Department of Corrections 523 East 12th Street, Capitol Annex Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: 515–281–4811 Fax: 515–281–4062

Programs in Correctional Settings

Kansas: Chemical Dependency Correctional Counseling Program Statement of the Problem The four northeastern Kansas counties—Brown, Doniphan, Jackson, and Nemaha—are typical of rural counties. Their population totals 41,233 people. The region’s predominant industry is agriculture. Personal and family incomes are lower than national and State averages, as are new housing starts and land values.

A number of risk factors in these counties have an impact on crime and substance abuse. The Chemical Dependency Correctional Counseling Pro- gram was developed to address these risk factors and to serve as a protec- tive factor for communities in this region.

The risk factors identified by the program are based on studies that com- pared empirical field data for this area of Kansas with data for the entire State. The field data present a picture of an area in great need of protective factors. The risk factors are:

❑ A higher than average number of families receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children payments.

❑ A higher than average juvenile arrest rate.

❑ A higher than average number of persons receiving general assistance welfare payments.

❑ A dramatic rise in local crime rates over the past 10 years.

❑ A higher than average rate of disorderly conduct cases.

❑ A higher than average rate of driving under the influence, vandalism, and drug arrests.

❑ A higher than average rate of unemployment.

❑ A higher than average rate of renter-occupied housing units.

❑ A higher than average rate of population mobility.

❑ A higher than average rate of persons reporting a family history of alcohol or other drug abuse.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ A higher than average rate of children reporting that someone in their household uses illegal drugs.

❑ A higher than average rate of school absenteeism and dropouts (in one of the four counties).

Before this program was implemented, chemical dependency counseling services were provided to inmates of local jails on a crisis basis. Law en- forcement and mental health professionals, however, wanted more inten- sive services for inmates. The sheriff of Brown County and the chief executive officer of the KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Center, Inc., worked together to secure a grant that funded the Chemical Dependency Correctional Counseling Program. Sheriffs from the other three counties collaborated on developing the program.

Goals and Objectives The main goal of the program is to provide chemical dependency recovery counseling to inmates residing in Brown, Doniphan, Jackson, and Nemaha County jail facilities. A secondary goal is to provide consultation and train- ing to law enforcement, dispatch, and jail personnel concerning the in- mates’ behavioral health. Although there are no quantified data for the number of consultations and in-services provided to these personnel dur- ing the program’s first year, the certified chemical dependency counselor formally and informally carried out these duties every week.

Program Components The program’s two components create a strong link between mental health services and law enforcement and corrections agencies in the area. One component is the KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Center, Inc., a li- censed, nonprofit mental health and chemical dependency center serving the four counties. The other is the chemical dependency counseling pro- gram, which employs one full-time chemical dependency counselor who travels to the four county jails weekly, providing counseling to inmates and consultations to law enforcement staff. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of the counselor’s time is spent with jail staff. The counselor is at each insti- tution on specific days. If a crisis occurs at any of the institutions, he or she has the flexibility to rearrange his or her schedule to respond. In addition, a therapist from the KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Center is on call 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

Inmates are referred to the program by the head jailer, law enforcement of- ficers, the sheriff, the client’s attorney, family members, or self-referral. On average, inmates stay in the program for 14 sessions. Inmates are treated by KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Center staff and are afforded the same services as mental health clients in the community. All services are

Programs in Correctional Settings

paid for by the county. After inmates are released from jail, however, they are responsible for the fees. When appropriate, the counselor treats family members or refers them to the KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Cen- ter for service.

When an inmate is discharged from the program, the chemical depen- dency counselor completes a Treatment Success Measure survey describ- ing the client’s achievements in the program. The survey’s criteria are different for each of the four types of clients served by the program: chemi- cally addicted, psychologically dependent, codependent, and adult and minor children of alcoholics and drug abusers.

To successfully complete treatment, a chemically addicted client must meet three of the following four criteria:

❑ Reports abstinence from chemicals during treatment period.

❑ Reports attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or similar meetings during treatment period.

❑ Is able to discuss the disease of addiction and its concepts.

❑ Reports satisfactory achievement of other counseling goals.

A psychologically dependent client must meet four of the following six criteria:

❑ Can discuss his or her chemical use and the degree to which that use is interfering in various aspects of his or her life.

❑ Can identify self-defeating behaviors and express ways to reduce them.

❑ Reports abstinence from chemicals during the treatment period.

❑ Can discuss the disease of chemical abuse and its concepts.

❑ Reports attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or similar meetings as needed during treatment.

❑ Reports satisfactory achievement of other counseling goals.

A codependent client must meet four of the following six criteria:

❑ Can discuss the disease of addiction or abuse and its concepts.

❑ Can discuss the ways in which another person’s chemical abuse or addiction has affected his or her life.

❑ Can identify self-defeating behaviors and express ways to reduce them.

❑ Reports making plans for self-improvement.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Reports using self-help groups as needed or as available during treatment.

❑ Reports satisfactory achievement of other counseling goals.

An adult or minor child of an alcoholic or drug abuser must meet three of the following nine criteria:

❑ Reports decreased fear or anger.

❑ Reports increased self-esteem.

❑ Understands the effect of chemicals on family or self.

❑ Displays increased self-expression.

❑ Can evaluate his or her addiction or dependency.

❑ Displays an increased level of trust.

❑ Understands his or her feelings.

❑ Knows how to meet his or her own needs.

❑ Can identify his or her addiction or dependency.

Successful completion was defined as the inmate’s level of cooperation and willingness to engage the counselor during sessions. It does not imply con- tinued sobriety.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The goal for the program’s first-year completion rate was 60 percent, and this goal was exceeded. Completion rates in the program’s second and third years were 97 and 89.5 percent, respectively. Benefits to inmates, law enforcement personnel, and the mental health center are expected to con- tinue. To measure the program’s performance, a survey instrument was developed that studied the program’s impact in a variety of areas, includ- ing recidivism rates of treated inmates versus those of untreated inmates.

Implementation Problems and Successes A source of revenue from the program’s counseling activities was over- looked during the first year of operation. The four local county jails house contract prisoners from counties outside the mental health center’s catch- ment area, and an opportunity to bill these counties for counseling services was missed. The billings are estimated to be worth only $5,000 annually, but this sum would meet a large portion of the mental health center’s re- quired matching funds.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Successes and Accomplishments The mental health center directly attributes the following results to the program:

❑ The mental health center receives fewer crisis calls from jails.

❑ Jail personnel perceive a partnership with the counselor and feel more comfortable with prisoners who have behavioral health problems.

❑ Inmates are less agitated by pent-up personal problems, and they per- ceive a link to the outside.

❑ Jail personnel distinguish between real and manufactured inmate mental health crises.

❑ The mental health center’s value to the counties has increased.

❑ Contacts between law enforcement and mental health center personnel concerning matters such as civil commitments and suicide calls have become more positive.

During its first year, the program served 54 individuals. Of these clients, 52 were male and 2 were female; 36 were white, 12 were Native American, and 6 were African-American. Clients ranged in age from 19 to 74 years; the average age was 32 years. Inmates’ rate of successful completion while incarcerated was 38.4 percent. This figure increases if the completion rate includes inmates who continue treatment after release to the community.

From July 1994 to June 1995, 65 individuals participated in the program, with a high percentage continuing treatment after incarceration. From July 1995 to June 1996, 79 participated, and from July 1996 to June 1997, 61 did so. Prior to this project, the region lacked a formal means to arrange postincarceration treatment.

Prospects for Replication Replication of the program is relatively simple. Financing, however, will be a challenge for each local area. The program is financed through Fed- eral, State, and local funds, a combination that should be sought by other jurisdictions attempting replication. As with most new programs, obtain- ing matching funds is the key, and billing other counties for inmates from areas outside the program’s catchment area will help meet this match.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Contact Information Bill D. Persinger, Jr. Chief Executive Officer KANZA Mental Health and Guidance Center, Inc. P.O. Box 319 909 South Second Street Hiawatha, KS 66434 Phone: 913–742–7113 Fax: 913–742–3085

Programs in Correctional Settings

Kentucky: Integrated Programming for Female Offenders Statement of the Problem Dismas Charities in Owensboro, Kentucky, is a 100-bed private commu- nity center and prison for female offenders. Results of informal studies of the client population at Dismas Charities are startling. Residents of the prison come from violent, abusive homes that lack structure, appropriate guidance, and a nurturing environment. The majority of women at the fa- cility have been abused by their parents and their boyfriends or spouses. It is clear that many women learned poor parenting skills from their parents. They lack understanding of the proper use of discipline, the nature of parent-child relationships, the management of problem behaviors among children, and other parenting issues. Without intervention, residents will likely pass on these parenting deficiencies. Many continue to deal with is- sues of abuse, and several report engaging in abusive behavior with their own children.

Most residents at the facility were convicted of offenses related to alcohol and other drug abuse. Returning these women to their homes without ad- dressing their drug and alcohol dependencies makes it difficult for them to change the destructive aspects of their lives. If dependency issues continue to plague them, they will not be able to find or keep jobs or manage their families effectively.

Goals and Objectives The program’s goals are to assess programming needs for female offend- ers, successfully reintegrate female offenders into society, reduce their recidivism rates, reduce the rate of incarceration among the offenders’ chil- dren, and empower female offenders to become economically indepen- dent, productive citizens and parents. To accomplish these goals, the program uses an integrated approach to treatment that addresses all aspects of their lives.

Program objectives include:

❑ Educating residents about parenting issues in incarceration.

❑ Developing job skills to establish independence.

❑ Providing onsite supervised visitation of children during incarceration.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Providing onsite counseling for problems that prevent residents from reentering society, holding a job, and managing their families.

❑ Offering materials that teach inmates how to be better parents.

Program Components Family-Oriented Programming The program’s 8-week parenting course strives to reunite families. Educa- tion in developing parenting skills includes both group education and in- dividual counseling sessions. Parenting skills are key elements in the program: The women make a commitment to being good parents who want to do more for their children. The program teaches participants to take a strong positive role in their family. If individuals are strong parents and provide a structured environment, both parent and child benefit. En- hancing parenting skills leads to lower recidivism rates and lower prob- ability that children of participants will enter the criminal justice system. Counseling staff at the Dismas program’s Family Resource Center work with residents to develop a support network for them in the areas of sub- stance abuse, education, and work experience. The counselors develop a relationship with the schools their clients’ children attend, for example, and a Girl Scouts Behind Bars Program has been started that allows moth- ers and daughters to meet together at the center. Mothers receive leader- ship training, and daughters are active in a troop in their community. Another family program, Camp Dismas, brings children to the center each month to give them and their mothers an opportunity to build stronger relationships.

Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment A full-time counselor uses group and individual counseling sessions to ad- dress all areas of substance abuse and codependency. Narcotics Anony- mous groups meet each week to discuss narcotics addiction and its consequences. Substance abuse is strictly monitored, and staff administer approximately 850 tests for alcohol and other drugs each month. In addi- tion, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings are held at the center weekly, and residents are sponsored by AA members from their home areas. These sponsors support residents on furlough and after they have been released from the program.

Counseling The facility has three counselors on staff to provide counseling services to residents. These services include family counseling for all or part of the residents’ families, and counselors focus on preparing residents to return to their families. Group and individual sessions are conducted for resi- dents who have been sexually abused, and victims of domestic violence

Programs in Correctional Settings

are offered biweekly group and individual counseling. All residents enter- ing the program are required to take a 6-week course on controlling anger.

Education General Equivalency Diploma (GED) classes are offered by the Owensboro City School System in coordination with the Longfellow Adult Learning Center. Opportunities for a higher education are available through the Owensboro Community College and private colleges in the community. A literacy program is offered onsite by VISTA volunteers and the Longfellow Adult Learning Center to residents who need additional skills to obtain their GED.

Vocational Education and Experience The program uses skills testing and evaluations to determine residents’ vo- cational needs. A mandatory work program assigns residents to work in the community. Government-funded agencies and nonprofit organizations provide assistance in areas the program is unable to fund. Residents work approximately 9,000 hours per month.

Religion Nondenominational religious services conducted by church leaders in the community are available to residents. The services are conducted twice a year.

Arts and Crafts To give residents an opportunity to enjoy a creative hobby, volunteers from the community offer arts and crafts activities at the center.

Volunteer Advisory Board The center’s Volunteer Advisory Board comprises 15 community leaders who volunteer to help staff develop additional programming and meet the needs of the center.

Medical Nursing services are available to meet residents’ immediate medical needs and to educate them about women’s health issues.

Halfway Back When appropriate, the program seeks community-based sanctions for of- fenders because they provide intensive accountability and treatment in lieu of prison. Referrals are made to Halfway Back by parole officers for a period of 30 to 120 days.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Tracking Residents are evaluated when they begin and complete the program and then tracked for 5 years to determine the program’s effectiveness.

Results and Impact Performance Measures A long-term study of the Dismas program will assess its impact on the lives of participants. The study includes a survey of participants about the program and tracks recidivism rates after residents are released. More spe- cifically, the survey will investigate whether:

❑ The program changes residents’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about parenting.

❑ Residents believe that they possess the skills to be effective parents.

❑ Residents believe that they are emotionally equipped to be effective parents.

❑ Residents leave the program with greater self-confidence.

❑ Residents know that they are having a significant impact on their children's lives and that their children need them.

❑ Residents learn strategies to enhance their children’s growth.

❑ Residents understand the importance of education.

Implementation Problems and Successes Building credibility for the Dismas program was difficult. As time passed, however, the program became increasingly recognized and accepted. The program faces financial constraints, but aggressively pursues funding ac- tivities to ensure an adequate level of staffing and programming efforts. Finally, the program’s family-oriented activities have been hindered by commuting difficulties of some families. In response, the program began providing transportation services, and the center’s executive director per- suaded the city to offer bus service near its facilities.

Successes and Accomplishments Although the long-term study of program effectiveness is not yet complete (the third year of the examination of the program concluded June 30, 1997), both anecdotal evidence and objective measures suggest that the program is accomplishing its goals. More than 300 women have completed the pre- test portion of the study, and 185 participants have finished the posttest portion. The program is corresponding with 144 women who have left Dismas. Thus far, the data indicate that the program is having a significant positive impact on the following:

Programs in Correctional Settings

❑ Inmates’ belief that they have the skills to be effective parents.

❑ Inmates’ belief that they are emotionally equipped to be effective parents.

❑ Inmates’ confidence in their ability to be effective parents despite having been incarcerated.

❑ Inmates’ knowledge that they are important to the well-being of their children and that their children need them.

❑ Inmates’ belief that they know specific strategies to enhance their children's growth.

❑ Inmates’ belief that education is important for their children.

Prospects for Replication Replicating this program requires strong community relations, a location in a city or business district, patience, positive attitudes, and a committed staff.

Contact Information William Gesser Director Dismas Charities, Inc. 530 Carlton Drive Owensboro, KY 42303 Phone: 502–685–6054 or 4712 Fax: 502–685–0081

Programs in Correctional Settings

Massachusetts: Stress Reduction and Awareness Training in Corrections and the Criminal Justice System Statement of the Problem The origins of criminal behavior are related to an inadequate ability to deal effectively with severe stress, deprivation, and low self-esteem. Lack of de- velopment in this area, including lack of moral development, abnormal states of mind, and strong negative feelings such as fear, frustration, an- ger, hatred, and greed can quickly lead to overt aggressive and violent be- havior. This causal chain is severely compounded by use of alcohol and other drugs, which impair or completely eliminate normal levels of aware- ness and impulse control. Social forces such as peer pressure and codes of behavior exhibited by certain groups such as gangs magnify this problem.

Maladaptive human development leading to criminal behavior can be cor- rected in some individuals, however, through intensive stress reduction training and strong social and environmental reinforcement. The core of mindfulness-based stress reduction is intensive training in moment-to- moment awareness (mindfulness). The regular practice of meditation and mindful stretching can help individuals discover unrealized inner capa- bilities to feel good without the use of drugs or other chemical substances.

Goals and Objectives The overall goal of this initiative, which is operated jointly by the Massa- chusetts Department of Corrections (DOC), a treatment vendor, and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (UMMC), is to develop a com- prehensive plan for implementing and maintaining mindfulness-based stress reduction training programs in the Massachusetts corrections, crimi- nal justice, and law enforcement systems. The initiative’s specific objec- tives are to design and implement:

❑ A training program with a professional staff capable of conducting stress reduction programs in correctional environments.

❑ A stress reduction program for offenders and Massachusetts DOC professional staff.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ A stress reduction program for law enforcement officers in training.

❑ Research and evaluation components.

Long-term objectives for these programs include giving inmates greater op- portunities for learning, growth, and self-development; reducing recidivism rates of released inmates; and limiting addictive and impulsive behaviors. Long-term objectives for DOC staff and law enforcement personnel include improving communication skills, job satisfaction, home life, and quality of life, as well as eliminating addictive and impulsive behaviors.

Program Components Project Team Planning, Development, and Implementation The model for the State’s stress reduction programs was developed by staff members from the State DOC, the treatment vendor, and UMMC. The team created a plan to implement the program in the State’s corrections, criminal justice, and law enforcement systems.

Teacher Training Program The teacher development training program supports experienced and new teachers. The program offers teacher supervision, onsite supervision, and site visits to assess program effectiveness.

Offender Stress Reduction Programs Stress reduction classes for offenders are held twice a week for 6 to 8 weeks. The classes are offered at five medium security, one minimum security, and one prerelease security DOC sites.

Offender Orientations Program orientations are held every 6 to 8 weeks. During these sessions, preprogram and postprogram evaluations are administered to inmates.

Staff Stress Reduction Programs Stress reduction classes for criminal justice staff, conducted by DOC and vendor staff, are held at DOC training facilities once a week for 8 weeks. Preprogram and postprogram evaluations are administered to program participants before the first class and after the eighth class.

Project Teaching Staff Meetings At each DOC facility, weekly meetings are held to discuss the situation at each site, offer support to instructors, facilitate efficient gathering of data,

Programs in Correctional Settings

and troubleshoot problems. These meetings are attended by instructors and project management staff.

Treatment Team Meetings Meetings are held as needed to discuss the status of the program, inmates, and support team members. The team comprises DOC corrections officers and treatment and classification staff, vendor representatives, and UMMC staff.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Performance measures for the program include:

❑ Subjective and objective tests such as the Profile of Moods (POMS), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Orientation to Life, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory to measure individual progress.

❑ Compliance and attendance levels.

❑ Behavior changes such as hostility and violence reduction, impulse control, awareness of mood states, positive attitudes and behaviors, stress management, and a sense of coherence.

Performance measures for inmates include long-term behavior changes such as reduced recidivism and drug-seeking behaviors and increased positive attitudes and behaviors, as well as increased use of opportunities for learning, growth, and self-development.

Individual performance measures for DOC, vendor, and criminal justice staff are improvements in communication skills, job satisfaction, home life, and quality of life and reductions in addictive and impulsive behaviors.

Implementation Problems and Successes Several vendors managing the treatment units originally viewed the program as recreational and did not take its objectives seriously. For example, they were unwilling to schedule time for participants to attend classes or to prac- tice stress reduction techniques. This lack of support and cooperation had a negative impact on the program’s implementation and operation.

In July 1994, the Massachusetts DOC selected Spectrum Addictions Incor- porated to run all of the program units. The philosophy of treatment within the DOC treatment units changed, and the focus of treatment shifted from substance abuse to criminogenic behavior. Within this new model, the holistic health component (including stress reduction) became a mandatory component of the treatment paradigm.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Another obstacle was the inability of program participants to practice stress reduction activities outside the classroom. An important component of the program requires each participant to practice the activities outside of class 45 to 60 minutes per day. Audiotapes are provided to aid in this process, but in- mates were not permitted access to audiotape players. To overcome this ob- stacle, the program was modified. The number of classes increased from one to two per week, and arrangements were made for the group to practice three times per week using the audiotapes set up in a classroom.

Successes and Accomplishments The Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts introduced a mindfulness-based stress reduction training program into the Massachu- setts corrections and criminal justice systems between 1992 and 1996. Nearly 2,000 inmates participated in at least 1 of the 120 program cycles at 6 Massachusetts DOC sites, including 1 women’s facility, 1 minimum secu- rity facility for men, and 4 medium security facilities for men. A similar program was provided to approximately 200 DOC staff members.

Of those inmates who began the program, 69 percent met the criteria for program completion (i.e., attended more than 80 percent of the cycle’s ses- sions), 40 percent attended 100 percent of the sessions, and 82 percent at- tended more than 50 percent of the sessions. Data from the more than 1,000 participants who completed preprogram and postprogram questionnaires measuring hostility, self-esteem, sense of coherence, and mood disturbance are being analyzed.

Prospects for Replication The prospects for replicating this program are excellent if the following cri- teria are met: a teaching staff with a solid grounding in mindfulness medi- tation, orientation and ongoing training of the teaching staff within the correctional environment, and strong support for mindfulness-based inter- vention from DOC management and the treatment team.

Contact Information Michael A. Bratt Director of Research Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society University of Massachusetts Medical Center 55 Lake Avenue North Worcester, MA 01655–0267 Phone: 508–856–1205 Fax: 508–856–1977

Programs in Correctional Settings

New York: Taconic Correctional Facility Nursery Program Statement of the Problem Since 1901, the State of New York has operated a nursery program in the New York State Reformatory for Women. The program is located at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, a maximum security facility for women. In 1930, Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt signed legislation allow- ing women in prisons and reformatories to keep their infants, up to 12 months of age, with them while they served their sentences. In some in- stances, the legislation allowed infants to stay with their mothers until 18 months of age. Over the years, it became evident that the 24-bed nursery at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility could not handle the increasing num- bers of pregnant women committed to the New York Department of Cor- rections. The female inmate population began to increase after 1985 due to the large number of women with substance abuse problems being sen- tenced to felony terms. As a result, the number of pregnant inmates in the system also increased. The waiting list for nursery beds continued to grow, and the Department faced a pressing need to create an additional nursery program. By 1990, 22 pregnant women at Bedford Hills awaited entry into the nursery program, and an additional 14 pregnant women awaited trans- fer to Bedford Hills from local jails.

Many of the pregnant women in the New York correctional system, espe- cially those committed for drug offenses, did not require a maximum secu- rity facility. Instead, a nursery program in a medium security facility was needed to address the needs of female inmates with substance abuse histo- ries who give birth while incarcerated. Taconic Correctional Facility was chosen for the new nursery program in 1990.

Goals and Objectives The goals of the program are to develop a nursery program at a medium security facility, create additional nursery space to serve incarcerated women with drug-dependency problems, and provide substance abuse treatment services in conjunction with education in parenting skills.

The program was implemented with the following objectives:

❑ Establish and operate a nursery program at the Taconic Correctional Facility.

❑ Provide drug counseling services for incarcerated mothers identified as substance abusers.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Evaluate, monitor, and treat babies born to mothers with histories of substance abuse.

❑ Teach parenting skills to and improve family relationships of incarcer- ated mothers.

❑ Increase the likelihood that released participants will lead drug-free lives, thereby reducing recidivism.

Program Components Staffing The nursery at the Taconic facility received funding to provide staff to work exclusively in the nursery program. The staff included a nursery manager, pediatric nurses, a Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (CASAT) counselor, additional correctional officers, and a psychologist.

Screening The following screening procedure was implemented for all prospective nursery program participants. Inmates with drug-dependency problems submit an application to the nursery counselor. The counselor summarizes the case and makes a recommendation, which is reviewed by three deputy superintendents. Approval is based on the inmate’s ability to benefit from the nursery experience. Denials can be appealed to the superintendent of the Taconic facility. Inmates who have babies in the local county correc- tional nursery program may also apply if they are sentenced to the State prison system.

Policymaking and Decisionmaking Committee Each month, the Nursery Interdisciplinary Committee meets to address operational problems, make policy changes, and discuss any cases of par- ticipant maladjustment. The committee comprises the deputy superinten- dents of security, program services, and administrative services and the nursery manager, counselor, psychologist, and nurse administrator.

Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Taconic Correctional Facility is the only female correctional facility in New York that operates the CASAT program. Authorized by the State legisla- ture, this drug treatment program provides a continuum of treatment be- ginning in the correctional facility and continuing after an offender’s release into the community. Nursery participants are required to partici- pate in CASAT.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Parenting Curriculum The parenting program consists of mother’s groups, child development classes, maternal/child health workshops, community meetings, and spe- cial seminars with outside speakers.

Public Health Nurse Although not formally part of the nursery staff, a public health nurse is provided by the Westchester County Department of Health to conduct bi- weekly prenatal and postpartum health classes for pregnant women and nursery mothers.

Psychologist Services The psychologist assigned to the nursery meets with nursery mothers indi- vidually. Other services include psychological assessments and individual and group psychotherapy.

Medical Care Medical staff provide the following services: primary health care to all ba- bies; monitoring of growth and development using the Baley Scales of In- fant Development; referrals to specialty clinics; selection and procurement of educational materials; education and counseling for mothers; develop- ment of clinical protocols; pediatrician visits; and infant CPR training for inmates and staff.

Infant Center Once admitted to the nursery program, mothers keep a busy schedule. Because mothers are required to participate in parenting and CASAT pro- grams daily, baby care must be provided in their absence. To meet this need, an Infant Center was established. The day care center is housed in the facility school building and is staffed by trained, carefully screened, in- mate babysitters. The inmates are supervised by the nursery manager, who is also an early childhood teacher.

The center requires that inmate mothers simulate the discipline of single mothers in the community. Mothers must schedule their babies’ feeding and nap times around their program schedule. They must have the babies fed, dressed, and ready to go to the center when programs are scheduled, and they must return quickly to the center to pick up their children at the end of the program day. An escort officer is provided to accompany the babies to the center, and this escort accompanies infants whenever they leave the unit for activities such as attending church with their mothers or medical appointments. For security purposes, babies are not permitted to associate with the facility’s general population without an escort.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Results and Impact Performance Measures New York’s correctional nursery program measures success through the following criteria: the number of participants who successfully fulfill their role as a parent upon returning to the community; the number of partici- pants who do not return to the correctional system; the results of indi- vidual progress reviews; the number of participants who successfully complete the program; and the number of children living with mothers af- ter they are released. Other expected results from the program are:

❑ Through CASAT, participants will gain enough coping skills to live drug-free lives. Familial interactions, community adjustments, and the overall quality of participants’ lives will improve.

❑ The parenting curriculum and the infant’s presence will lead to a strong attachment and bonding between mother and child. Developing a strong bond will give the mother a strong incentive to change her be- havior, and she will more likely make full use of the program’s oppor- tunities during her incarceration. The parenting program will teach the mother about her child’s physical, social, and cognitive development, leading to better parenting.

❑ The infant will receive appropriate medical attention and have access to a positive, socially stimulating environment. Through this support- ive environment, the infant will develop a strong sense of trust, which will serve as a positive factor in the child’s development.

Implementation Problems and Successes Perception by nonparticipating inmates that nursery participants were a fa- vored, pampered group generated a great deal of resentment toward the pro- gram in the facility’s general population. Moreover, the nursery program was implemented at a time when the State was experiencing severe budget cuts, including staff layoffs, and staff attitudes were not positive toward what was viewed as another example of catering to inmates’ needs while neglecting the staff. After a few months of operation, the implementation problems were re- solved as both staff and the general inmate population came to view the nurs- ery program as a positive addition to the facility.

Successes and Accomplishments From 1990 to 1994, 168 women and 163 infants participated in the pro- gram. During those years, 113 women were either paroled or went to com- munity reintegration programs with minimal or no separation from their children, and only 16 women were removed from the program for disci- plinary reasons. Overall, the program reports that infants were healthy and well cared for, no infant was removed for medical reasons, no miscar- riages occurred, and pregnant women enjoyed healthy confinements.

Programs in Correctional Settings

A followup study of the program’s first 27 participants conducted by the New York State Division of Parole revealed that the majority of the women were still caring for their children: 81 percent of the children were living with their mothers, 15 percent were living with grandmothers, and only 1 child was in foster care. Anecdotal evidence from volunteers, community contacts, and calls and letters from released mothers indicates that most participants have continued to follow the program’s concepts in their communities.

From 1995 to 1997, 124 mothers and babies participated in the program. Of these, 77 mothers were released to parole supervision or entered a work- release program, 27 babies were sent to other caretakers and their mothers were removed from the program because they failed to follow the program’s rules, and 20 mothers and babies are currently in the nursery program.

An important part of the nursery program’s successful implementation were the efforts of a task force that worked to ensure that the nursery was operational and equipped with appropriate supplies when the program began. The task force comprised staff who were parents. The program also benefited from the creation of the nursery team and the Nursery Interdisci- plinary Committee, comprising oversight groups that review policy, re- solve problems, and monitor participant progress. By allowing inmate participants and staff to establish strong relationships, these groups have proved to be an invaluable tool in managing the nursery.

The Taconic Correctional Facility Nursery Program is widely considered a model program. The program has been highlighted in a number of news articles and television presentations throughout the United States, as well as in Japan. Representatives of numerous State correctional systems have visited the Taconic facility to observe the program, and Attorney General Janet Reno visited the nursery in October 1993.

Prospects for Replication This program can be replicated in some form in all prison systems. The program has great potential to positively affect incarcerated women and their children and incarcerated women who are pregnant.

Contact Information Bridget Gladwin Correction Superintendent Department of Corrections Taconic Correctional Facility 250 Harris Road Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Phone: 914–241–3010 Fax: 914–242–3010, ext. 209

Programs in Correctional Settings

Ohio: Oriana House, Inc., Residential Treatment Services Program Statement of the Problem Addressing the problems of prison and jail crowding is a priority in Ohio. In Summit County, the usually steady number of offenders sentenced to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) has in- creased dramatically in recent years due to drug-related arrests. This surge in offenders led to overcrowding in local jails and increased probation caseloads.

The State’s correctional system lacks effective drug and alcohol treatments. According to an ODRC study, treatment for substance abuse is the greatest need of the majority of probationers. In Summit County, 66 percent of pro- bation violations are related to substance abuse, and more than 90 percent of residents in a local halfway house were assessed as requiring some type of substance abuse service. Probation officers became increasingly frus- trated attempting to secure timely substance abuse treatment for offenders.

Summit County responded to these problems through the Residential Treatment Services (RTS) program, a continuum of sanctions to address the needs of both the community and the substance-abusing probation vio- lator. The program is provided through Oriana House, Inc., a private, non- profit community corrections agency whose mission is to deliver effective treatment services to offenders without jeopardizing public safety. Oriana House operates residential centers, substance abuse treatment programs, nonresidential programs, and numerous support services.

Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the RTS program is to reduce the number of proba- tioners committed to State prison for substance abuse-related probation violations. The program strives to meet this goal by pursuing the following objectives:

❑ Immediate placement of at-risk probationers into a residential setting to reduce the opportunities to abuse drugs and alcohol.

❑ Enrollment in onsite State-certified substance abuse treatment and aftercare.

❑ Continuation of supervision and services with mandated participation in a day reporting program following release from the residential center.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Provision of ancillary services to meet employment and educational needs.

❑ Implementation of supervision techniques appropriate to the offender’s level of community involvement.

Program Components The RTS program takes approximately 1 year to complete and involves a progression through three program components: halfway house place- ment, intensive outpatient treatment and aftercare, and participation in a day reporting program. RTS has 475 residential beds and plans to make another 100 available. Participants are referred to the program if they en- counter problems while on probation. The program targets minority of- fenders, especially African-American offenders. RTS accepts nonviolent, adult felony, misdemeanor, and traffic offenders who need long-term reha- bilitation and who have shown motivation toward self-improvement to courts, probation departments, ODRC, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Separate facilities are maintained for male and female offenders. Program placement is in lieu of incarceration or part of efforts to reintegrate offend- ers into the community.

Halfway House The program’s halfway house provides residential services for 160 RTS participants. In-house programming includes educational classes and General Educational Development (GED) testing, employment readiness and placement assistance, 12-step programs, life skills training, drug test- ing, financial management education, and recreational activities. Residents are released from the facility only for verified employment, education, and other authorized activities or for earned pass time. Once employed, resi- dents pay a per diem to offset the cost of the program. Residents enter into performance contracts with case management staff to set behavior goals geared toward their successful return to independent community living. Residency typically lasts at least 90 days.

Intensive Outpatient Treatment and Aftercare RTS clients participate in intensive outpatient treatment and aftercare for substance abuse during their halfway house residency. Treatment, avail- able in morning, afternoon, and evening sessions, is delivered in 16, 5- to 6-hour sessions, which are held 4 days a week for 4 weeks. Elements of outpatient treatment and aftercare include:

❑ Initial and comprehensive assessments to determine the client’s strengths and weaknesses and to acquire the information essential to individualizing treatment interventions.

Programs in Correctional Settings

❑ Individual counseling sessions to build client/counselor rapport, iden- tify problem issues, devise negotiated strategies for problem redemp- tion, and assess individual treatment progress.

❑ Group counseling sessions that serve as the primary treatment modal- ity. The sessions match clients with others who have similar problems and encourage self-disclosure, peer confrontation, and feedback.

❑ Presentations that provide clients with information on chemical dependency.

❑ Self-help groups to involve clients with others who can reinforce the concepts essential to long-term recovery.

All clients are referred to ongoing aftercare groups following successful discharge from treatment. Discharge summaries with aftercare plans are generated and distributed to the probation officer and caseworkers to as- sist in a consistent continuum of treatment.

Day Reporting The program’s day reporting component serves as a bridge from the insti- tution to the community, following halfway house placement. All case management activities are transferred to the day reporting staff. Clients report to their caseworkers daily, maintain established curfew hours, and are visited by staff at their job sites. Electronic monitoring is often used as a sanction for clients whose positive behavior warrants early release from the halfway house. Gradual decreases in reporting requirements are made as appropriate. Drug testing is continued, as is monitoring for compliance to drug treatment plans. All programs available to clients at the halfway house remain available to day reporting participants. Offenders must show progress toward rehabilitative goals to be successfully released from the program. Upon release, participants remain on probation in a less re- strictive mode.

Participants are terminated from RTS if they commit a new crime, have be- havioral problems, use drugs, or assault the staff. Violators may be re- ferred to a secure community-based correctional facility or to prison.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Implementation of the RTS program should result in a decrease in the num- ber of probation revocations and prison commitments among the target population. Performance measures include: the number of probationers who successfully complete the program, the number of treatment sessions at- tended, the number of drug and alcohol tests conducted, the number of recur- rent substance abuse-related revocations and convictions, and the number of prison commitments for substance abuse-related violations.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Implementation Problems and Successes Implementation problems were minimal because the program’s three components had previously operated as independent programs. The most serious initial concern was inadequate communications among the compo- nents to ensure that RTS participants moved smoothly through the three phases. Another obstacle was overcoming staff resistance to the additional paperwork, meetings, and documentation.

Physical space requirements presented challenges with the formation of additional treatment groups. The problem was resolved by developing open-ended treatment sessions at different times during the day and rent- ing additional office space.

Finally, RTS staff have struggled to overcome the reluctance of some pro- bationers to enter residential programs. These offenders view treatment more as punishment than as therapy, and the program is working to edu- cate them about the program’s therapeutic mission and potential benefits. Moreover, role conflict between treatment and supervision is a recurrent issue between program and probation staff. To improve the treatment of clients, the program conducts cross-training sessions and encourages regu- lar contact between treatment and supervision staff personnel.

Successes and Accomplishments In its first 30 months of operation, RTS exceeded its goal of serving 50 pro- bationers annually, with a substance abuse treatment completion rate of 89 percent. To date, 136 probationers have been served.

Probationers at risk of violating probation have been able to enter sub- stance abuse treatment within 1 week of referral, a significant improve- ment from past practices when probationers spent months on waiting lists before securing a slot. Monitoring systems have been established to track program graduates as they continue on probation. Data collection has been ongoing, and analysis will begin after a full year of operation. In addition, the program has secured funding to continue operating.

Prospects for Replication Oriana House had a unique advantage in implementing RTS, because all pro- gram components were already fully operational. The coordination of ser- vices from a single agency is much easier to replicate than is the brokering of services from several agencies or the creation of a new residential center that includes both drug treatment and day reporting services.

An important aspect of replicating the program is obtaining the coopera- tion of the criminal justice system. This cooperation can be secured by pro- viding a cost-effective service for a group of people the system does not want to work with, such as offenders on work release or those with mental

Programs in Correctional Settings

health problems. Program staff must provide copious information to all stakeholders including judges, sheriffs, and city commissioners. Each stakeholder should be contacted at least once every 6 months.

Contact Information James Lawrence President and CEO Oriana House, Inc. 49 East Glenwood Avenue P.O. Box 1501 Akron, OH 44309 Phone: 330–535–8116 Fax: 330–996–2233

Programs in Correctional Settings

Oklahoma: Department of Corrections Enid Community Learning and Family Center Statement of the Problem The U.S. Department of Education estimates that approximately one out of every five American adults, or 20 percent, cannot read at the sixth-grade level. These individuals are functionally illiterate and cannot read street signs or warning labels on medicine bottles, fill out job applications, or perform other daily tasks. Another 34 percent of American adults are mar- ginally illiterate, meaning they cannot read above the eighth-grade level. Forty-three percent of the combined illiterate population is between the ages of 20 and 29, an important child-rearing period in most people’s lives.

Oklahoma is heavily affected by illiteracy, ranking fourth in the Nation in proportion of functionally illiterate residents. Using 1990 census data, an estimated 461,000 Oklahomans were identified as functionally illiterate and another 785,000, as marginally illiterate. Oklahoma ranks third in the Nation in per capita incarceration rates. Sixty-two percent of all Oklahoma inmates did not complete high school and 70 percent read below the 12th- grade level.

The correlation between crime and illiteracy is well documented in correc- tional literature. In 1993, recognizing the need to combat illiteracy, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections District V Probation and Parole Office, proposed establishing a community-based education program to serve as an alternative to incarceration. At the same time, the Enid Metro- politan Area Human Services Commission conducted a community needs assessment that indicated that a large number of young families were in need of coordinated and comprehensive social services. Coincidentally, a substantial number of District V’s probationers/parolees were identified as belonging to that population. A unison of missions occurred, and the Department of Corrections Enid Community Learning and Family Center was established.

Goals and Objectives The Enid Community Learning and Family Center plays both a preventive and rehabilitative role in the fight to break the cycle of criminal behavior perpetuated by poor education and lack of services and resources.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

In working toward this goal, the Learning and Family Center has identi- fied the following objectives:

❑ Provide, prior to adjudication, substance abuse and educational assess- ments to all persons charged with a crime and forward the assessments to the court to divert appropriate offenders to treatment programs as a condition of probation or parole.

❑ Refer families and neighborhoods to Family Center activities that address their needs.

❑ Establish the Learning Center, a community-based literacy program for offenders, their families, and other citizens in the area.

In meeting these objectives, the Enid Community Learning Center abides by the beliefs that the learner’s needs must be met and that the learner should have a sense of control over his or her learning.

Program Components Once clients have entered the program, they can access either the Learning Center or the Family Center; the centers share a coordinator and adminis- trative support. Learning Center instructors and Family Center advocates work cooperatively to help clients access services most appropriate to their individual needs and goals.

The Learning Center focuses on providing educational services to the of- fender population and to the community at large, literacy, adult basic edu- cation (ABE), and General Education Development (GED) classes are offered to all individuals free of charge. The center’s methods of instruc- tion differ according to skill levels: one-on-one instruction for students functioning at the literacy level, small group and lecture instruction for students functioning at the ABE or GED level, and a customized computer- assisted education program for students at all levels. These modalities en- able students to become independent learners in the areas of reading, math, language, writing, sciences, and social studies.

Workplace Skills Enhancement Program The Learning Center helps meet the needs of workers and employers in Enid by providing a continuing education program, with emphasis on work-related skills. The Workplace Skills Enhancement Program allows those already in the workforce to upgrade skills for more effective job per- formance. Classes and individual instruction link work-related lessons with job-specific materials and situations, providing both theoretical and vocational training. Other classes allow employees to improve basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics and prepare for GED examinations.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Summer Enrichment Program This program is a voluntary, 2-month service for selected young people in the community. The program offers youth workplace training, part-time employment, and half-day educational instruction. The Learning Center provides educational instruction in reading and math. Instructors teach the classes using nontraditional teaching methods in a creative environment.

Youth Opportunity Task Force Program This initiative provides intervention services to first-time juvenile offend- ers. A recent community survey found that the average first-time offender was more than two grade levels behind his or her peers in academic com- petency. Working in cooperation with Family Center advocates and other community agencies, the Learning Center provides this group with educa- tional instruction. The objectives of the program include decreasing the crime rate of juveniles by 25 percent, decreasing gang activity by 20 per- cent, and increasing community involvement with youth through partici- pation in community service projects.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Given the orientation of the center toward the provision of resources and referrals, performance measures cover both the number of participants and qualitative indicators of success, including:

❑ Number of offenders diverted to the program.

❑ Number of citizens in the area using the program’s resources.

❑ Number of referrals made by the Family Center.

❑ Number of placements in service and followup programs.

❑ Average increase in Learning Center participants’ achievement levels.

❑ Number of participants receiving GEDs or completing educational programming.

❑ The Learning Center’s effect on illiteracy and the local crime rate.

❑ Level of community support.

Implementation Problems and Successes Initial implementation problems were a result of the fragmented nature of resources and services that existed prior to the establishment of the center. Developing a collaborative effort among agencies as extensive as the Metro

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Commission, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Edu- cation meant overcoming a number of “turf” issues. In particular, the ABE and GED coordinator for the area was resistant to the Learning Center be- cause he believed it threatened the need for his services. Time was re- quired to explain that the program sought not to exclude any individual or program but rather to bring individuals together and expand programs to provide more convenient and effective services. Teams were not devel- oped overnight; it was through the perseverance of center advocates that working relationships were developed based on trust, flexibility, and a common vision.

A problem still being addressed concerns preadjudication assessments for probation clients. Currently, preadjudication assessments are not manda- tory and occasionally overlooked. However, the center is working with the county sheriff to create a consistent process whereby if bond is made, the client immediately visits the center for assessment; or, if bond is not made, an assessment is conducted at the county jail.

Finally, the center could have a deeper impact if probation and parole agents referred more clients to the center. The lack of referrals has been the result of poor understanding of what services are offered at the center. It is hoped that ongoing communication between the center and probation and parole agents will rectify this situation.

Successes and Accomplishments In the 2 years the Learning and Family Center has been in operation, adults and children have benefited from readily accessible services in a community setting. Often, offenders and citizens are not skilled at obtaining the services they need, a problem compounded by service bureaucracy. The center’s one- stop shopping concept allows easy access to critical, needed services. In addi- tion, collaboration has made services more economical, curbed redundancy, and improved the quality of life in the community. Success is also evident in the diversity of citizens turning to the center for assistance and in their indi- vidual and group accomplishments. Through the center, appropriate offend- ers have been diverted from prison to community programs, and, at the same time, the corrections system has had a model that demonstrates that commu- nity programs can be successful.

Two local employers, Singer Steel and the city of Enid, took advantage of the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program, which offers classes designed to meet individual and company requirements. Interaction between the employers and the Learning Center ensured that the skills and training needs of both employers and employees were met. Singer Steel completed its skills enhancement program in FY 1993–94, and the city of Enid began a program in FY 1994–95. In addition, the program recently hired a job placement agent to perform career assessments and to help direct individual's to services.

Programs in Correctional Settings

The Summer Enrichment Program proved to be very successful. Upon en- tering the program, each student was given an ABE test. The test was ad- ministered again at the end of the program and each student gained a minimum of 2 months in at least one subject, some increasing their skill level by as much as several years.

In addition to the adult clients referred through the Enid Community Cor- rections Center and through the District V Probation and Parole Office, the Learning and Family Center serves an increasing number of clients re- ferred from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Autry Vo-Tech, and area churches. The Learning Center recently began serving more people from the local community than from the Department of Correc- tions. Since it opened, the Learning Center has held two graduations and awarded more than 100 GEDs.

More than 600 individuals and families have been affected by the services offered. A privately funded outgrowth of the Family Center’s Parents as Teachers Program has brought selected parents of 3-year-olds into the cen- ter for learning enhancement. While the parents learn skills as varied as reading improvement and basic computer skills, their children attend St. Paul’s Preschool. It is the Learning Center’s hope that family literacy will be strengthened by the Learning and Family Center partnership.

Collaboration with the center on community projects has also improved the public’s perception of the Department of Corrections and its mission.

Prospects for Replication Positive media attention, community enthusiasm, and the support of a State representative living in the area have resulted in a legislative pro- posal requiring the State’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secre- tary of Safety and Security, and Secretary of Education to submit a plan to the Governor for the development of family service centers throughout the State. The centers would serve local residents and offenders being super- vised in the community by coordinating services of the Oklahoma Depart- ment of Human Services, Department of Health, and Department of Corrections. The legislation has passed in the Oklahoma House of Repre- sentatives. In addition, the Department of Corrections plans to establish additional learning centers throughout the State. When grant funds were exhausted on June 30, 1997, the Department of Corrections assumed fund- ing the Enid Community Learning Center, thereby ensuring continuation of the project.

Other States interested in replicating the Enid Community Learning and Family Center should consider the following issues:

❑ Community services and programs must already exist to make referrals to the Family Center.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Advocates must have the time and perseverance to overcome the hurdles of developing relationships with agency personnel who may feel threatened by a centralization of services.

❑ All agencies and their personnel working with the center must under- stand its mission and services for the center to have optimum effect.

Contact Information Jan Walton Director Department of Corrections Enid Community Learning and Family Center 2615 East Randolf Enid, OK 73701 Phone: 405–242–6600 Fax: 405–234–3554

Programs in Correctional Settings

Oregon: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program Statement of the Problem National studies have revealed the effects of alcohol and drug abuse on crime and prison overcrowding. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statis- tics 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates found that 31 percent of inmates re- port committing their offense under the influence of drugs, 62 percent report regular use of illicit drugs, 32 percent report committing their of- fense under the influence of alcohol, and inmates sentenced for drug of- fenses account for 44 percent of the recent increase in prison population.

Alcohol and drug problem screening data from Oregon prison inmates present a similar picture. For example, 85 percent of incoming inmates re- port some history of illegal drug use; 53 percent report regular, sustained use of an illicit drug; 36 percent report regular, sustained use of alcohol; 39 percent report use of illicit drugs at least once weekly prior to incarcera- tion; 38 percent report severe mental problems including hospitalization, depression, and hallucinations caused by alcohol or drugs in the past year; and 63 percent report serious social problems caused by alcohol or drugs in the past year.

Many State prison inmates have severe alcohol and drug problems that contribute significantly to their criminal history. Prison alcohol and drug treatment programs have been effective at addressing these problems. For example, the Stay ‘N Out Program in New York followed more than 2,000 offenders over a 10-year period and found large reductions in arrests and parole revocations for treated offenders when compared with untreated offenders. In Oregon, the Cornerstone Program found large reductions in arrests, convictions, and returns to prison that are directly attributable to time spent in treatment.

Goals and Objectives The goal of the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program is to provide residential therapeutic community treatment to reduce recidivism of in- mates who have severe alcohol or drug problems and an established pat- tern of criminal behavior. Specific program objectives are:

❑ Maintaining program utilization at a minimum of 90 percent of capac- ity and providing residential alcohol and drug treatment to at least 200 inmates yearly.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Providing residential alcohol and drug treatment services at levels required for licensing by the State Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.

❑ Helping 90 percent of inmates abstain from alcohol and illicit drug use during treatment (as measured by urinalysis).

❑ Achieving a completion rate of 60 percent for at least two-thirds of the treatment objectives before discharge.

❑ Referring 80 percent of inmates completing the program to a commu- nity treatment program and enrolling them in that program.

❑ Assisting program graduates with employment skills so that at least 50 percent demonstrate improvements in employability at discharge.

❑ Reducing arrest rates of program graduates by at least 25 percent, conviction rates by at least 25 percent, and incarceration by at least 25 percent.

Program Components Opened in November 1990, Turning Point is housed within the Columbia River Correctional Institution. The program is operated by ASAP Treat- ment Services, Inc., of Portland. The facility is divided into 2 50-bed units—1 for women and 1 for men. Establishing a therapeutic community within the confines of an institution requires developing close working re- lationships among treatment staff and correctional staff. A therapeutic community is a 24-hour living environment in which people with similar problems learn to work and live together, thereby learning the skills they need to work and live outside the institution. The inmates, called residents, help staff manage the unit, create guidelines for living, and solve problems in the unit. Residents are treated as decisionmaking adults. Peer and sup- port groups operate 24 hours a day, creating a powerful learning environ- ment.

Activities include education, therapy, family counseling, parenting skill training (with sessions involving residents’ children), therapeutic commu- nity meetings, work crew, and work release. Successful transition to the community is enhanced by vocational planning; development of a support system involving family, friends, and self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; and connection with an outpa- tient aftercare drug treatment program. Residents move through five pro- gram phases, beginning with a 30-day assessment and evaluation phase and ending in the work release phase and parole. Ideally, residents are in Turning Point for 6 to 12 months prior to parole. Program components are as follows:

Programs in Correctional Settings

❑ Stress Management—learning self-management and self-care skills.

❑ Community Meeting—learning basic problem-solving skills, making commitments to change behaviors, and practicing leadership roles.

❑ Core group—participating in process-oriented group therapy that emphasizes recognizing and challenging errors in thinking.

❑ Lectures—attending educational presentations on alcohol and drug addiction and recovery, health issues, interpersonal skills, and living skills.

❑ Life skills workshops—participating in sessions designed to teach and practice complex life skills such as assertiveness, anger management, goal setting, managing criminality, and changing thinking errors.

❑ Leisure development—learning to enjoy leisure time without alcohol and drugs.

❑ Family program—enhancing relationships with family and significant others through family counseling and parenting skills training.

❑ Employment preparation—screening for vocational interest and personal objectives, writing resumes, preparing for job interviews, and planning for short- and long-range career goals.

❑ Release planning—developing a recovery plan, aftercare plan, short- and long-range goals, and money management skills.

❑ Relapse prevention—understanding the relapse process, developing an individual relapse prevention plan, and learning strategies for avoiding and responding to offers of alcohol and drugs, and handling a relapse.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The performance indicators for the program are program use, professional standards, abstinence during treatment, treatment completion, community referral, employability, and recidivism.

Implementation Problems and Successes The men’s unit experienced a turnover in the unit manager position during the first year of operation, requiring an extended period to fully develop staff teamwork and program structure. Both units continue to adapt to changes in the State Department of Corrections (DOC) such as work re- lease policies and prison overcrowding. The women’s unit has often found it necessary to provide shorter term treatment than planned because of the short sentences given to many female inmates.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Successes and Accomplishments The program’s accomplishments were summarized in the State Licensing Review Report dated April 17, 1995:

❑ The program is exceptionally well managed at all levels of leadership.

❑ Open records are uniform in structure; information is easy to locate.

❑ Staff interviews suggest that morale is high.

❑ Diversity of staff is a strength.

❑ Management is highly supportive of professional growth and development.

❑ The program works well with the Department of Corrections and communicates effectively with DOC staff at all levels.

❑ The women’s unit is exceptionally astute at identifying issues specific to the population and responding to the needs of women participating in treatment.

❑ The program provides a good mix of clinical and cognitive programming.

❑ The program’s quality assurance process appears effective in identify- ing strengths and weaknesses regarding documentation, course of treatment, and outcomes.

In addition to alcohol and drug treatment, services provided by staff at Turning Point range from family counseling and parenting skills training to mental health case management. Over the past year, female clients have presented an increasing number of mental health issues. The program has responded by hiring a mental health staff, coordinating and communicat- ing with health services, and initiating comprehensive staff training. The program focuses primarily on transitional planning and has hired staff to coordinate transitional services for inmates prior to release from custody.

Results for FY 1996–97 were:

❑ Program utilization—97 percent (423 individuals treated annually).

❑ Professional standards—State licensing obtained.

❑ Abstinence during treatment—99 percent.

❑ Treatment completion—45 percent.

❑ Community referral—81 percent.

❑ Employability—52-percent improvement.

❑ Recidivism—48-percent decrease in arrests, 61-percent decrease in convictions, and 28-percent decrease in incarcerations.

Programs in Correctional Settings

Prospects for Replication Turning Point is one of several prison-based residential therapeutic pro- grams implemented across the country in recent years. Intensive alcohol and drug treatment programs in prison address a critical need and have been shown to be effective. Unique aspects of this program are the support it receives from the institution and other corrections programs, the dual emphasis on drug treatment and intervening in criminal thinking, the pro- vision of parenting skills training, the use of relapse prevention planning, and the program’s emphasis on transition to postprison supervision and treatment.

Contact Information Gary Field Barbara Aho Grider Administrator Executive Director Counseling and Treatment ASAP Treatment Services Services Division 2130 Southwest Fifth Avenue Oregon Department of Corrections Portland, OR 97201 2575 Center Street NE. Phone: 503–224–0075 Salem, OR 97310 Fax: 503–274–7642 Phone: 503–378–8373 Fax: 503–378–5118

Kevin Hormann Manager Alcohol and Drug Program Columbia River Correctional Institution 9111 Northeast Sunderland Avenue Portland, OR 97211 Phone: 503–280–6663, ext. 240 Fax: 503–820–6012

Programs in Correctional Settings

Pennsylvania: OPTIONS Women’s Therapeutic Center Statement of the Problem The Philadelphia Prison System (PPS) is a large, urban correctional system with a tradition of offering full-service alcohol and other drug treatment programs, including therapeutic communities, to its residents. In the past, the main recipients of these services have been male inmates. The opportu- nity to participate in the therapeutic community, also referred to as inten- sive treatment, was not available to female inmates.

There were compelling reasons for establishing programming specifically for women in PPS. The number of women entering the system who abused alcohol and other drugs was increasing, and the number of chemically de- pendent incarcerated male offenders was believed to be as high as 80 per- cent. Alarmingly, in the Philadelphia area, the number of female offenders needing substance abuse treatment was even higher. Additionally, there was a desire on the part of the agency staff to make women’s substance abuse programming equal to that for men. This desire coincided with a court order to PPS to provide alcohol and other drug treatment services to any sentenced inmate who wanted treatment, with equitable programs for men and women.

Goals and Objectives The Women’s Therapeutic Center is a 70-bed program that operates within the framework of a systemwide chemical dependency treatment effort known as Opportunities for Prevention and Treatment Interventions for Offenders Needing Support (OPTIONS). The broader objective of the pro- gram is to interrupt the cycle of addiction, criminal activity, and incarcera- tion. Related objectives support the maintenance of a program atmosphere that facilitates the development of the client’s potential. At the same time, the program encourages participants to assume and share leadership and responsibility in nonauthoritarian and nonabusive ways within a nontradi- tional therapeutic community setting.

Programming goals are designed to educate and support abstinence and recovery, as well as teach and reinforce coping skills that make community reintegration successful.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Components The primary goal of the OPTIONS Women’s Therapeutic Center is to pro- vide gender-appropriate treatment to incarcerated women who are chemi- cally dependent. Clients are referred to the program by court stipulations; by self-referrals, which are based on staff and program participants’ de- scriptions of the program during new inmate orientation or advertising about the program within the institution; or by referrals by social workers or other staff.

The assessment process determines whether the offender has an alcohol or other drug problem and if she is interested in treatment. Assessment is ac- complished primarily through interviews by program staff using a modi- fied version of the Addictions Severity Index. The interviewer seeks to determine the severity of any psychiatric problems and the woman’s abil- ity to handle the contact-intensive nature of the therapeutic community. The psychiatric unit provides consultations when necessary. Self- evaluation of treatment needs also contributes to the assessment process.

The program uses the therapeutic community as its primary treatment for- mat. However, it uses a communal, noncompetitive approach rather than the traditional, hierarchical structure typically employed by therapeutic communities. Group therapy is the principal mode of treatment, with indi- vidual counseling and 12-step meetings offered as support services. Family therapy is available through Target Cities funding from the Center for Sub- stance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) for clients who are legally eligible for a special early release program.

Treatment is offered in 8-week cycles. Each cycle is designed around re- covery and related issues. Staff discovered that certain issues, such as abuse, self-image, parenting, and codependency, remain constant. How- ever, a client’s readiness and level of recovery are continually assessed when designing and presenting material.

Participants enter the program at the cycle in progress at that time. The number of cycles a client completes during her time in treatment is not de- pendent on the curriculum being offered but on the number of 8-week pe- riods she remains in treatment. To graduate from an 8-week cycle, a client must adhere to the rules and regulations of the program and participate regularly in program activities. Materials used in each cycle are designed with the special needs of the current population in mind. Core cycle activi- ties often include developing trust among members, facilitating adjust- ment to community living, and providing an opportunity to learn and practice new communication skills.

Admission to the program is continual, and clients enter at different points in a cycle. Because the county prison population experiences rapid turn- over, staff must place new clients in ongoing treatment activities. To do this, all new admissions are oriented to the program and to the group

Programs in Correctional Settings

therapy process through participation in a newcomers’ group. In this group, staff have the opportunity to assess the client’s needs and adjust- ment problems and to confer with other group leaders about suitable placement.

Committees give participants the opportunity to exercise leadership, prac- tice cooperation, and realize their creative potential within a specific pro- gram area. Program committees deal with parenting enrichment, the recovery journey, the whole woman, 12-step fellowship, special resources, and special projects that involve all the women in activities such as the production of a play, a graduation presentation, or a program newsletter.

Each cycle culminates in a graduation ceremony, which rewards, rein- forces, and fortifies staff as well as clients when the difficult work of a cycle is completed. These ceremonies have become a cherished tradition of the program and are well attended by custody and administrative staff, community members, and OPTIONS treatment staff. Family members, dignitaries, service providers, and former successful program graduates are encouraged to attend the yearly anniversary graduation, which cel- ebrates the anniversary of the program as well as the graduation of current cycle participants.

Two successful initiatives assist in securing the best possible outcome for clients upon release. The first involves the assignment of an OPTIONS out- reach coordinator to develop community resources for clients. These re- sources often deliver educational seminars to program members as well as provide services upon their return to the community. As of July 1997, ap- proximately 278 speakers had presented 564 seminars to inmates in the OPTIONS program.

The second initiative involves access to community treatment slots, many specifically designed for the female offender, through a combined criminal justice effort for early parole known as the Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) Project. The FIR Project depends on the cooperation of agencies that traditionally have not worked together. For instance, biweekly meetings are attended by representatives from the mayor’s office, the court, the dis- trict attorney, the public defender, mental health providers, alcohol and other drug counselors, probation and parole officers, prison officials, and other criminal justice and city agencies. PPS was able to secure, through the auspices of Target Cities from CSAT, a criminal justice grant to offer family therapy to clients who are awaiting release to the FIR Project. These clients receive a minimum of 20 hours of family therapy while participat- ing in OPTIONS.

At the Community College of Philadelphia/OPTIONS Campus, a special four-course mental health/social service curriculum is offered to eligible in- mates and funded by penalty money the district court was compelled to pay due to overcrowding in the PPS. Classes, which are attended by women from

Bureau of Justice Assistance

the therapeutic community, include topics such as child abuse, substance abuse, interpersonal communication skills, and domestic violence.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The implementation of the Women’s Treatment Center was expected to in- crease the number of women receiving treatment in jail, as well as upon release. Additionally, it was assumed that disciplinary infractions would decrease within the treatment unit as compared with the period before the program’s inception. Other performance measures include the number of cycles completed, the number of cycle graduates, and the number of semi- nars provided by community resources. Random urinalysis is an impor- tant measure of program integrity. Clients are given a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with program and staff services.

Implementation Problems and Successes A major achievement was the program’s successful implementation amid rampant sabotage and undercutting. The transfer of certain key custody staff within the female unit became necessary to implement services and to root out negative attitudes and behavior toward female inmates. Initially, the staff did not believe that a therapeutic community would work for fe- male offenders. An all-female staff was chosen for the program and trained to understand the potential of a therapeutic community for women.

Staff struggled with the question of providing treatment for pregnant in- mates who needed to be housed together for security and medical pur- poses. It was decided that the women’s therapeutic unit would house this population. On occasion, the unit must deal with clients who do not com- ply with program rules and regulations yet cannot be removed from treat- ment. These inmates are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given time out of program activities for failure to comply with program guidelines.

Successes and Accomplishments From October 1992 to the end of July 1997, 1,696 women were processed through the program. More than 65 percent of these women graduated from at least one cycle. Additionally, four anniversary graduations were held. Urinalysis tests have been administered to inmates approximately six times a year, with 25 to 30 clients tested each time. Of those inmates tested from October 1995 to July 1997, nine tested positive. During the same pe- riod, 16 inmates received disciplinary reports. All of the women who leave the therapeutic community are referred to community agencies, and 55 percent have attended treatment. Moreover, several women who have graduated from the therapeutic community unit and are in strong recovery come back to the unit to chair Narcotics Anonymous meetings and offer recovery seminars to active clients.

Programs in Correctional Settings

The Women’s Therapeutic Center was a popular choice for student place- ment, and four graduate and three undergraduate students spent time at the center during the years reported on in this publication. One student was a correctional officer working on an undergraduate degree in social work.

Prospects for Replication This program is relatively simple to duplicate. Information is abundant on correctional alcohol and other drug programming. Information on women’s treatment issues, although not abundant, is available. The crucial element is the selection of both correctional and treatment staff. More spe- cifically, the attitude and energy of staff will make the most notable differ- ence in the outcome of treatment efforts. Therapeutic community work is emotionally and mentally arduous. Considering the stressful environment of a prison setting, staff commitment, integrity, and compassion are para- mount to the healing process. It is important that prison administrators support treatment efforts and treatment staff, and cross-discipline training and communication must be provided and sustained.

Contact Information Deborah Raddock Director OPTIONS Philadelphia Prison System 8301 State Road Philadelphia, PA 19136 Phone: 215–685–7111 Fax: 215–685–7199

Programs in Correctional Settings

Rhode Island: Discovery Substance Abuse Treatment Program Statement of the Problem Approximately 37 percent of the female population incarcerated by the State of Rhode Island has been sentenced for drug-related offenses, and more than 87 percent of these women have serious substance abuse prob- lems. The issue of substance abuse must be addressed comprehensively to prepare female offenders for release from incarceration.

Prior to 1993, substance abuse treatment for women incarcerated in Rhode Island was sporadic or nonexistent. The need for an intensive residential program based on gender-specific issues with a strong aftercare compo- nent was critical. Sixty-seven percent of Rhode Island’s female prison population is serving less than 1 year. They tend to be repeat offenders who are highly resistant to treatment. For these offenders, incarceration is a window of opportunity to participate in intensive treatment.

According to a study of recidivism rates and Rhode Island statistics re- leased by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in March 1989, failure rates are highest in the first year after release. Recognizing the complicated needs of women, as well as the opportunity for introduction to substance abuse treatment and education during the period of incarceration, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (DOC), in collaboration with the Office of Substance Abuse, used Federal funds made available through the Governor’s Justice Commission to introduce onsite, comprehensive sub- stance abuse treatment to a group of women incarcerated in the DOC mini- mum security unit.

Discovery, a 24-bed residential unit, is the result of a contract awarded to Talbot Treatment Centers, a community-based drug treatment agency. The program began admitting clients in February 1994, and employs four bilin- gual, bicultural, gender-appropriate counselors.

Because Rhode Island has no jails, all incarcerated women are housed in the DOC Women’s Facilities. Inmates with sentences of 2 years or less (or who have 2 years or less remaining to serve) and classified as minimum security are eligible. There is no age restriction; the population is between 19 and 40 years of age. Approximately 80 percent of the women in the pro- gram are mothers of dependent children, and most are single and involved with the State’s Department for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). The majority of the women are prior offenders of nonviolent crimes. Fifty per- cent belong to racial or ethnic minority groups, and a significant number

100

Bureau of Justice Assistance

have histories of both physical and emotional abuse. Nearly all are multiple-drug users, usually a combination of cocaine, alcohol, and heroin.

In developing the program, factors contributing to substance abuse were recognized and addressed. These factors include histories of sexual and domestic violence, illiteracy or lack of a high school education, undiag- nosed or untreated learning disabilities, the need for parenting education, undeveloped work ethic, lack of job skills or meaningful employment, health and mental health problems, lack of education about preventing sexually transmitted disease and tuberculosis, and lack of access to safe, affordable, and substance-free housing. Underlying all these factors is an overwhelming lack of self-esteem.

The potential impact of a woman’s success in the program is evident well beyond the prison and the criminal justice system. Learning to live drug- and crime-free brings social and financial benefits to the entire community. When a woman succeeds, children are removed from State custody; health care, unemployment, and welfare costs are decreased; and homelessness is reduced. Although it is unrealistic to expect that long-term success will be widespread and sustainable for every client, a sound intensive treatment program, with realistic aftercare plans in place and community support available, has a greatly enhanced chance for success.

Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the program is to educate and counsel women about the disease of addiction.

The program’s objectives are as follows. First, introduce the offender to a gender-specific and culturally relevant residential therapeutic community to alter substance abuse, criminality, and self-destructive behavior. Second, provide her with a structured continuum of care as an alternative to incar- ceration that prevents relapse and reoffending. Third, successfully facili- tate her reintegration into the community.

Program Components The paucity of research on the treatment needs of women with substance abuse problems has been a serious impediment to the development of empiri- cally validated treatment programs for female offenders. Currently, enough evidence supports the hypothesis that substance abuse treatment can be effec- tive, efficient, and economical. Studies suggest that when gender-sensitive treatment is offered to women, treatment outcomes improve. Outcome stud- ies funded by BJA indicate that the therapeutic community approach to drug treatment appears to be the most popular form of intensive drug treatment under development within correctional institutions.

101

Programs in Correctional Settings

The program is structured into four phases of treatment: orientation, re- covery, relapse, and transition. Discovery is a well-coordinated, multidi- mensional treatment program modeled after the current Talbot Treatment Centers’ Women’s Program. Discovery has a static capacity of 24 and a dy- namic capacity of 100. The program is presented by a well-trained treat- ment team that is knowledgeable about gender and cultural issues. Comprehensive and individualized at the same time, Discovery treatment interventions address alcohol and other drug dependency, criminality, in- stitutionalization, relapse, and gender-related treatment issues such as guilt, shame, physical and sexual abuse, parenting, and codependency. The program addresses these issues through individual, group, and family counseling, life skills training, leisure time and nutrition activities, and vo- cational and career counseling. To maximize the program’s impact, Dis- covery staff collaborate with support services for women and children in the prison. The average length of stay is 3 months, but women may stay in the program at the facility until their release from prison.

Discovery’s treatment emphasizes planning for release, which involves individual and family aftercare planning, including coordination with DCYF. The program facilitates referrals to the Talbot Treatment Centers’ network and other community-based treatment and social service pro- grams in the State. Talbot Treatment Centers have signed integrated ser- vice and affiliation agreements with more than 60 health organizations, schools, and treatment, housing, and service agencies.

Discovery provides ongoing assessment and case management to deter- mine readiness for movement to the transition phase or to a community- based setting. Determination of readiness for movement is based on satisfactory completion of mutually agreed-upon treatment goals. The in- mate should be able to demonstrate an ability to deal more effectively with the stresses of everyday living. It is hoped that the need to use alcohol or other drugs to alleviate stress in anxiety-producing situations will have been reduced by teaching the inmate more positive coping skills. Indica- tions of this are 12-step involvement, improved social skills, improved parenting skills, knowledge about substances and their effects, develop- ment of leisure-time activities, and improved self-concept.

The integration of physical activities into group and individual sessions is important as women move through the treatment stages. Their weekly schedule includes groups focusing on emotions, cognitive restructuring, relationships, women’s health, art therapy, stabilization and withdrawal, relapse prevention, self-esteem, substance abuse education, and social skills. In addition, community meetings and relaxation measures, as well as recreational activities such as softball, volleyball, weight training, and dance, are led by the program team. Outside consultants provide domestic violence education, advice to trauma groups, and aerobic classes. Other support services provided to the women by DOC are mentoring, parenting, general educational development (GED) preparation, life skills training, discharge planning, job preparedness, and self-help groups.

102

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Women who participate in the program retain job responsibilities on the wing as well as regular visitation rights with lawyers, psychologists, DCYF social workers, and family members. The women attend a 6-week series on early childhood development, as well as a scheduled parenting component on weekends. Program staff conduct case reviews with child care and cus- tody workers from DCYF, meet with attorneys if necessary, and work with the women’s families. Many of these women would not be admitted for treatment in community-based modalities. Many are already diagnosed and on supervised medications and would not meet the admission criteria of an agency-managed program. Most of the women have complicated medical histories, and some have been diagnosed HIV-positive and are receiving treatment while incarcerated.

Talbot Treatment Centers, Inc., the parent organization of Discovery, pro- vides a full continuum of care consisting of six separate programs. The orga- nization operates three outpatient programs in different parts of the State, as well as detox; residential, day treatment for women; and long-term care pro- grams. Discovery clients participate in that network and can be admitted to the next level of care through prison staff after they are released.

The furlough program allows women to leave the facility for treatment at Talbot one night each week. Through the program, women form links with the outpatient counseling staff so that they are on familiar turf once re- leased. Offenders are more likely to continue treatment after release if they are familiar with the staff and surroundings. Women in medium security receive services without the intense environment or schedule of the resi- dential component. Their group participation is approximately 6 hours a week, compared with 20 to 25 for the residential program. Many of the women in medium security are transferred to the community-based resi- dential program upon release.

Work release, another component of the program, allows women who have reached the transitional phase and are classified work release, to join the workforce while in treatment. Women in this component may work nights and weekends and some daytime hours, but must remain in the program for a minimum of 3 days a week.

Women are removed from the program if disciplinary action is taken; if they do not conform to their treatment plan and refuse to sign a behavioral contract; if they are asked to leave because of rule infractions; or if they re- quest dismissal from the program.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The success of the Discovery program can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively. The program’s evaluation has been designed to demonstrate compliance with licensing regulations and to collect and study internal

103

Programs in Correctional Settings

program data. Internal data include documentation of all patient/client in- formation, such as medical actions, intake assessment, treatment plans, counselor progress notes, and referrals. Other documents collected include reports on daily census, monthly admission and discharge, and quarterly and year-end site and programmatic reports. These reports contain infor- mation on client demographics, program volume and other program vari- ables, service gaps and needs, and program outcomes.

Implementation Problems and Successes The program encountered some implementation problems. There was re- sistance to treatment from the correctional staff and the institution person- nel. Traditionally, little or no meaningful treatment existed within the institution, and officers resented the presence of counselors as authority figures and perceived them as challengers to their own authority. Counse- lors resented the structure inherently necessary in institutional manage- ment. A relatively low initial census allowed for training and acclimati- zation of each group. Over the course of the first year, a mutual respect and tolerance evolved.

Regarding the program’s schedule, startup plans called for a 7-day, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. schedule. Staffing was thin and supervision sparse. Within the first year, the schedule was revised to a 5-day, 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m regimen. The change created a tighter routine during the week, with Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous groups during the evenings and assignments and leisure time on weekends.

When the Discovery program’s original grant funding ended, it was in- cluded in the DOC budget. The program was awarded a 4-year grant, renewable for 5 years, on July 1, 1997.

Successes and Accomplishments More than 150 women have successfully completed treatment. Each participant’s length of stay is individualized to adapt to the length of her sentence. Women may go on work release and remain on the wing, becom- ing senior peers if appropriate. The program has been revised from a three- to a four-phase model. Women in medium security now receive group and individual treatment. Scheduling has been condensed to 5 days a week, allowing for a tighter, more closely controlled program. Women in work release are allowed to work nights, weekends, and some day hours, but are required to participate in the program for a minimum of 3 days a week. Recreation programs have been expanded; they now include softball and volleyball teams, a project in which inmates who are victims of do- mestic violence decorate t-shirts displayed locally, and a project in which women work on a panel for the national AIDS quilt. New projects in the program involve nutrition and food preparation and a Rhode Island Arts Council Grant to fund the design and painting of a mural for the program.

104

Bureau of Justice Assistance

No positive toxicology screens have been submitted to date, nor have there been any incidents of violent or other negative behavior on the Discovery wing since the program began. The program has created a model treat- ment environment with a positive atmosphere and is increasingly re- quested by inmates. The recidivism rate for women completing the treatment program appears to have dropped to approximately 20 percent, compared with 45 percent for the facility’s general population.

Prospects for Replication The prospects for replication of this program are excellent provided the following factors are in place:

❑ A prison environment receptive to treatment.

❑ A willingness by the corrections administration to provide training and cultivate tolerance as treatment agencies begin assimilating into the prison setting.

❑ Support from existing prison treatment staff.

❑ Cooperation from prison classification staff who select and encourage women to participate.

❑ Teamwork among institutional program staff and Discovery counselors.

❑ A blueprint for helping women remain in treatment for as long as possible both inside the institution and after release.

Institution staff are working on a regional training program for the New England States to facilitate information sharing among managers of female offenders.

Contact Information Roberta Richman Maureen Simmons Warden Program Director Rhode Island Department of Discovery Drug Treatment Corrections Rhode Island Department of Women’s Facilities Corrections P.O. Box 8312 P.O. Box 8312 Cranston, RI 02920 Cranston, RI 02920 Phone: 401–464–2366 Phone: 401–464–2129 Fax: 401–464–1842 Fax: 401–464–1108

105

Programs in Correctional Settings

South Dakota: Corrections Substance Abuse Program Statement of the Problem Prior to 1988, substance abuse programs in South Dakota State correctional facilities were nearly nonexistent. There were three chemical dependency counselors in the entire system, which includes two prisons, two trustee units, and three juvenile facilities. The only substance abuse services pro- vided in the institutions were referrals to self-help groups, reference and reading materials, and minimal crisis intervention services. Only two cor- rectional facility chemical dependency programs had State accreditation, and maintaining that accreditation was problematic because of inadequate staffing and programming.

In 1988, through the use of chemical dependency assessments and adult and juvenile offense histories, the South Dakota Department of Corrections (DOC) determined that a minimum of 70 percent of adults and 60 percent of juveniles housed in South Dakota correctional institutions had alcohol and/or drug problems that were not being treated. Adequate community- based treatment services for individuals prior to or following incarceration were not available. The assessment data demonstrated that a majority of these individuals, if they were to be treated in community-based pro- grams, would need inpatient treatment services because of the severity of their alcohol and/or drug use and the lack of a stable community support system. To address this need, DOC applied to the South Dakota Attorney General’s Task Force on Drugs for funding for chemical dependency pro- gramming in correctional facilities under the State and Local Law Enforce- ment Assistance Programs Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The Corrections Substance Abuse Program was also established in 1988.

Since its implementation, the program has expanded, and it now provides a continuum of chemical dependency services for offenders throughout the State’s correctional facilities. The program’s staff includes 22 State employ- ees and 3 part-time chemical dependency counselors. Of the 22 State em- ployees, 19 are counselors who provide chemical dependency treatment and related services, 2 provide clerical support, and 1 is the program’s ad- ministrator. All of the program’s personnel were employees of the South Dakota DOC from 1988 until August 1995, when they became employees of the Department of Human Services, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. A memorandum of understanding was developed between the two departments to address supervision, funding, and program issues.

106

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Goals and Objectives The goal of the South Dakota Corrections Substance Abuse Program is to provide a continuum of chemical dependency services to adults and juve- niles sentenced, paroled, or adjudicated to DOC. These services offer of- fenders an opportunity to develop the skills they need to abstain from chemical use and to successfully reenter the community upon release from custody or supervision.

To achieve this goal, the following objectives were defined:

❑ Establish chemical dependency program units in six DOC facilities.

❑ Complete thorough chemical dependency assessments of all adult and juvenile offenders who enter DOC facilities.

❑ Establish a continuum of program components and base admission to them on the results of chemical dependency assessments and program availability.

❑ Develop program format and content according to the characteristics of the chemically dependent offender.

❑ Develop programs that meet the needs of females and Native Americans.

❑ Gather, summarize, and analyze data for program evaluation annually.

❑ Refer all adults and juveniles involved in chemical dependency services in DOC facilities to community-based chemical dependency services upon discharge.

Program Components Assessments Assessment of an offender’s substance abuse treatment needs consists of the completion of a variety of screening and assessment instruments, a structured interview, an analysis of the effects of chemical use upon critical life areas, and an examination of chemical use and criminal histories. Diag- noses are based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, fourth edition (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 1994), criteria for substance-related disorders.

Intensive Outpatient Chemical Dependency Treatment Adults and juveniles who have chemical dependency diagnoses are eli- gible for outpatient treatment. The program ranges from a 60-hour, 5-week program to a 100-hour, 6-week program, depending on which correctional facility the participant resides in. Programming components include ed-

107

Programs in Correctional Settings

ucational presentations, group and individual therapy, and individual as- signments based on the needs and goals established in the treatment plan. Outpatient treatment is followed by treatment in the institution compo- nent focusing on relapse prevention strategies.

Modified Therapeutic Community This program offered at the Springfield State Prison, a medium-security unit, provides chemical dependency treatment to inmates grouped to- gether in a therapeutic community. The criteria for entering and remaining in the program are chemical use, criminal history, and individual motiva- tion and progress in the program.

Specialized Programming for Juveniles In addition to the intensive outpatient treatment program described above, the following program components are available in the State’s three juve- nile correctional facilities: prevention education groups, pretreatment groups, and groups for juveniles who have been affected by the chemical use of parents or guardians.

Specialized Programming for Women and Girls Female juvenile offenders are placed either at the Lamont Youth Develop- ment Center, a correctional facility for girls, or at the State Training School, a coed facility with a separate cottage for girls. At the Springfield State Prison, a coed medium-security facility, women are housed in a separate unit and attend group therapy sessions covering subjects that include eat- ing disorders, parenting issues, prenatal substance use, abuse issues, and codependency, as well as topics that are not gender specific.

Specialized Programming for Native Americans Although a separate institutional treatment program for Native Americans is not available, chemical dependency counselors in all South Dakota State cor- rectional facilities receive training on the “Red Road” approach, and topics related to Native American cultural and spiritual beliefs are presented during the treatment program. Voluntary programs such as People in Prison Enter- ing Sobriety, sweat lodges, and powwows are also available.

Program Content for the Offender Population To make programming more relevant to the needs of chemically depen- dent offenders, treatment offered through the program focuses on errors in thinking and cognitive restructuring using the Criminal Thought Process. This model addresses the unique psychosocial characteristics of offenders and is used in conjunction with materials from 12-step programs. The model’s philosophical and practical emphasis is that chemical use and criminal activity are choices that can be confronted and disrupted through- out the treatment process and beyond.

108

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Case Management Services for Juveniles Before entering a juvenile corrections facility, adjudicated juveniles receive case management services in their communities. Services include chemical dependency screenings, assessments, and community-based chemical de- pendency services.

Discharge and Referral Services Upon Institutional Release All adults and juveniles who complete institutional chemical dependency treatment are referred to community-based chemical dependency agencies for aftercare services upon discharge. Community-based services include aftercare, individual and family therapy, transitional residential program- ming, and case management. The purpose of case management is to estab- lish treatment plans and sanctions for noncompliance through face-to-face meetings with treatment service providers, parole agents, and parolees.

Results and Impact Performance Measures The final component of the program is evaluation and followup. Three ar- eas of evaluation are conducted for both adult and juvenile programs: a participant evaluation of the treatment program, an evaluation of the participant’s progress during treatment by the primary counselor, and a survey completed by Court Services for juvenile offenders and by parole agents for adult offenders. The surveys, which are completed 3 months fol- lowing release for juveniles and 1 year following release for adults, contain the following information:

❑ Where the offender is living.

❑ Whether the offender is working and/or attending school.

❑ Whether the offender is using chemicals.

❑ Whether the offender has been tested for drugs and the results.

❑ Whether the offender has reoffended.

❑ How the offender is progressing in all aspects of the program.

The results of the three evaluation components are compiled and analyzed annually by an independent researcher.

109

Programs in Correctional Settings

Implementation Problems and Successes Program Support. Since its inception, the program has been strongly sup- ported by the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. She has fought for the creation of new chemical dependency counselor positions within DOC and ordered that substance abuse treatment programs be imple- mented within the State’s adult and juvenile corrections institutions. Sup- port was weak among some administrators and security staff. Staff from the educational and vocational programs were concerned that chemical de- pendency programs would reduce their time and programming efforts with inmates. However, as the program became operational, tension gradually evolved into adjustment and accommodation in all institutions.

The efforts of program staff and the program’s results were primarily re- sponsible for diminishing opposition to chemical dependency treatment services. First, chemical dependency staff made an effort to cooperate with other institutional support areas such as security, food services, and medi- cal units. They operated under the caveat that institutional security was priority and programming must conform to security needs. Second, secu- rity and other program staff noticed that offenders were easier to work with and more motivated to participate in programs after they completed chemical dependency treatment.

Institutionwide support for the program has expanded its range. Inmates who need chemical dependency services are now required to complete the recommended programming before moving through the prison system. Chemical dependency counselors now sit on inmate classification boards and disciplinary hearing teams and provide information to the parole board. In the State’s institutions for juvenile offenders, where there is greater overall therapeutic emphasis, chemical dependency units are inte- grated into facilitywide programs and chemical dependency counselors are an integral part of the offender’s treatment team.

Criminal Thought Process Programming. Many of South Dakota’s chemical dependency counselors came to the corrections system from community- based programs where they had infrequent contact with offenders. These counselors attempted to implement the same program content and philoso- phy they had applied in community settings and were frustrated with the re- sults. To address this problem, all State correctional chemical dependency counselors and employees are required to attend training on the Criminal Thought Process, a practical approach to working with offenders that is based on criminal personality research and the principals of 12-step programs.

Since 1992, the Criminal Thought Process approach has been integrated into all correctional chemical dependency program components in South Dakota, and training on how to use its techniques is required for all new corrections employees. Many counselors have become Corrective Thinking Specialists and are training others in the model. Parole agents throughout

110

Bureau of Justice Assistance

the State and many counselors from community-based agencies have also been trained in the model. In addition, Criminal Thinking self-help groups have been initiated in the prison system by inmates, and several inmates plan to implement groups in their communities after release.

Agency Collaboration. When adults and juveniles who have been treated for chemical dependency are released from custody, they are referred to community-based agencies for aftercare services. Juveniles are supervised by Court Services officers, and adults are supervised by parole agents. However, correctional officials discovered a breakdown in aftercare was sometimes occurring when juveniles returned to their communities. They often did not contact the community-based agency assigned to provide their aftercare, and their court services officers either were not aware of the referral or need for aftercare or did not follow through when learning of the individual’s failure to participate. Many adults on parole did not re- ceive community-based aftercare services because funding for the services was not available and because parole agents were reluctant to insist that parolees attend aftercare services that they could not afford.

In response to these problems, the following steps were taken. For juve- niles, an interagency agreement was developed with DOC, the Depart- ment of Human Services, and the Unified Judicial System. The agreement delineated the responsibilities of each agency for making sure that juve- niles released from institutions under court supervision would attend community-based aftercare. To treat the adult situation, a pool of money was made available for community-based chemical dependency services through the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. In addition, directors of State-accredited service providers signed agreements delineating their responsibilities and agreed to develop services specific to offenders. Despite these steps, however, instances still exist in which juveniles and adults do not receive needed aftercare services. Parole agents need more education on the nature of chemical dependency and the benefits of after- care, and the community-based agencies require more information on the special characteristics and needs of offenders.

Successes and Accomplishments Since its inception, the South Dakota Corrections Substance Abuse Pro- gram has reported these accomplishments:

❑ Approximately 900 adults and 250 juveniles are assessed each year, and 550 adults and 150 juveniles receive treatment.

❑ A continuum of chemical dependency services has been developed and implemented for chemically dependent adults and juveniles in all South Dakota Department of Corrections facilities.

❑ A system for providing community-based aftercare services has been developed and implemented for adults and juveniles discharged from correctional facilities.

111

Programs in Correctional Settings

❑ Chemical dependency programs in the State’s correctional institutions have evolved to address characteristics and needs specific to the offender population.

❑ The program evaluation and outcome data indicate that institutional chemical dependency treatment is successful. Court Services officers report that 59 percent of juveniles did not use drugs or alcohol while on supervision following institutional discharge. Parole agents report that 58 percent of parolees had not used drugs or alcohol 1 year after release.

❑ A therapeutic community for female adolescents in minimum-security facilities with chemical dependency diagnoses was implemented in November 1996.

Prospects for Replication Replication of various aspects of this program could be accomplished with relative ease. However, much of what makes the program successful in- volves the formal and informal relationships that have been established within the State’s correctional facilities and within and between State and private nonprofit agencies. These relationships evolve slowly, and main- taining them requires attention and coordination. However, interagency agreements that clarify the roles of each agency at the outset are good starting points.

Copies of program descriptions, interagency agreements, Memorandums of Understanding, summaries of assessment data, and the program’s FY 1995 executive summary are available from the South Dakota Department of Human Services.

Contact Information Laura Lewis Administrator Corrections Substance Abuse Program Department of Human Services Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Hillsview Properties Plaza East Highway 34 c/o 500 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501–5070 Phone: 605–773–3123 Fax: 605–773–5483

113

Programs in Correctional Settings

Wisconsin: Rock County Education and Criminal Addictions Program Statement of the Problem Rock County, Wisconsin, is composed on an interesting urban and rural population mix. Beloit has a large African-American population and has experienced a decline in the heavy industry that provided employment for many years. Janesville, where the Rock County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) jail is located, is the home of a General Motors assembly plant and has a predominantly white population. The remainder of the county is ru- ral, and nearly 10 percent of the county’s population lives below the pov- erty level.

Rock County has experienced rapid growth in criminal activity and in- creases in jail sentences. Rock County’s crime rate ranks fifth in the State of Wisconsin. In 1994, 7,643 serious and 364 violent crimes were reported for a population of 139,510. Recent gang activity in the county is attributed to the area’s proximity to Rockford and Chicago, Illinois, and to its conve- nience as a drug drop-path between Chicago and Madison, Wisconsin. Drug- and alcohol-related crimes now account for 80 percent of the county’s total crimes. The number of criminal offenders housed at the Rock County Jail increased 400 percent between 1988 and 1991, and the average daily jail population from June 1996 through July 1997 was 463.

Recidivism at the county level was estimated to be between 65 and 70 percent when the Rock County Education and Criminal Addictions Program (RECAP) was instituted in November 1992, with the assistance of a U.S. Department of Education correctional education grant. RECAP was designed to reduce recidivism in Rock County by providing education and rehabilita- tion to incarcerated offenders through the expertise and professional commit- ment of three local agencies: RCSD, Blackhawk Technical College (BTC), and Rock Valley Correctional Programs (RVCP), Inc. RECAP partners believe that the county is the least costly and most effective site to reduce recidivism and that comprehensive programming is required to meet inmates’ many needs. Single-approach programs are not effective in redirecting inmate lifestyles. Although only a 4-month program, RECAP attempts to demonstrate the im- pressive effects that vocational and literacy instruction, on-the-job training, community service, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation can have on the lives of serious criminal offenders.

114

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Goals and Objectives RECAP’s foremost goal is to provide a comprehensive educational and re- habilitation program to county inmates that significantly reduces recidi- vism. The objectives for reaching this goal are divided into program/ operational objectives and educational/participant objectives.

The program/operational objectives are to:

❑ Obtain and maintain the combined expertise of the law enforcement, education, and treatment communities.

❑ Ensure that RECAP represents and is responsive to the needs of partici- pants and the community by establishing a broad-based advisory com- mittee that meets regularly to discuss RECAP issues.

❑ Ensure that resources to meet the needs of the program are located and secured.

❑ Conduct an evaluation of the program that measures program effec- tiveness and improvement and assists other jurisdictions with replication.

The educational/participant objectives are to:

❑ Provide educational and rehabilitation opportunities to approximately 120 individuals a year.

❑ Give RECAP participants opportunities for instruction and rehabilita- tion that will prepare them for a changed life upon release.

❑ Conduct vocational instruction based on competency attainment in a variety of training areas including food service preparation, food safety and sanitation, custodial training, landscaping or lawn care, construc- tion, painting, chain saw operating, and wildlife assisting.

❑ Arrange community service and on-the-job training to participants to provide atonement, vocational training, and service.

Program Components RECAP profiles for the past 3 years show an average participant age of 27. Thirteen percent of participants were female and 51 percent minority. Eighty-nine percent entered with a demonstrated drug or alcohol problem. More than 70 percent had not graduated from high school, and many re- quired remedial instruction.

Male and female inmates housed in the Rock County Jail as a condition of probation, sentenced by the courts, and Huber-qualified (those with work- release privileges) are eligible to participate. The program is limited to 38 men and 8 women. Preference for admission is given to inmates who are

115

Programs in Correctional Settings

sentenced to 120 days or more, are unemployed, have special educational needs, and have documented alcohol and drug abuse needs. Juveniles are not accepted into the program unless they are sentenced as adults. The program runs in 4-month cycles with an intensive 40-hour week schedule.

RECAP partners share responsibility and financial obligations for deliver- ing the program’s services. The components and partners assuming major responsibility are shown in the box below.

Program Component Responsible Partner

Work Experience and RCSD Community Service

Criminal Thinking Group RVCP

Employability Skills BTC

Literacy and General Equivalency BTC Diploma (GED) Instruction

Vocational Education BTC

Construction Instruction RCSD

Aftercare Services BTC

An advisory committee with broad community support that includes rep- resentatives of treatment, employment, educational, and organized labor organizations meets monthly, providing advocacy, advice, and expertise.

To meet a need for training in upper level vocational skills, RCSD sought and received assistance and financial resources from the Wisconsin Office of Jus- tice Assistance (OJA). To meet an evolving need for an alternative high school, BTC sought assistance from the Adult Education Act to develop the Scans High School Equivalency program. An aftercare component was pro- posed and funded by the State Department of Education/Correctional Educa- tion to address the unmet needs following incarceration.

Vocational instruction is competency based. Certificates of skills in the ar- eas of food service, construction assistant, custodial assistant, and other fields are given at graduation ceremonies. Alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) group participation is an extensive part of the program. On-the- job training, community service, literacy, and employability instruction are also components of the program.

Vocational offerings began with custodial, food service, landscaping, and other on-the-job training. More than half of the participants do not have any significant work experience. RECAP training compensates for work

116

Bureau of Justice Assistance

experiences that seventh to ninth graders in other circumstances often ob- tain as a part of their development. Employment opportunities in these ar- eas are plentiful in Rock County. There was an unmet need, however, for higher level vocational skills that demand higher wages in the job market. As a result, construction assistant opportunities were provided through the encouragement and financial help from OJA. Community service and on-the-job training opportunities were expanded as well with OJA assis- tance. These additions to the program not only help inmates develop broader vocational skills, but expand public knowledge of RECAP through their visibility in the community.

To successfully complete the program, participants must meet the follow- ing criteria:

❑ Attend and participate in all scheduled class and group sessions.

❑ Raise two or more grade levels in reading, math, or writing.

❑ Complete or work toward a high school equivalency diploma, if needed.

❑ Watch academic skills videos as assigned.

❑ Complete a criminal inventory.

❑ Complete an autobiography.

❑ Complete a lifeline.

❑ Complete a victim script.

❑ Create an aftercare and relapse prevention plan.

❑ Attend support groups.

❑ Complete at least one on-the-job training.

❑ Display appropriate work attitudes in all community service experiences.

❑ Complete the employability skills course.

❑ Achieve a final evaluation of 32 points or better.

❑ Receive a recommendation from a RECAP staff member.

❑ Fulfill probation and parole and/or court recommendations.

The Inmate Review Committee meets weekly to assess student progress. The committee performs the following functions: intake review, progress review, termination or graduation review, exit review, determination of entry and exit dates, and establishment of a recall system that permits an

117

Programs in Correctional Settings

inmate’s case to be reviewed for progress after release. The committee comprises the treatment manager, the education manager, the jail/work release supervisor, and the jail liaison from the Department of Corrections. An inmate can be dropped from the program by the committee for pos- sessing contraband, presenting discipline problems, absconding from the program, threatening staff, testing positive in urinalysis screens, showing a lack of courtesy, and refusing to attend the program.

Results and Impact Performance Measures Staff collect participant and program information on a data system and use this information for program improvement. Data collected include literacy scores before and after the program, work histories, drug and alcohol his- tories, basic job skill levels, autobiographies, notes from vocational coun- seling, reports by participants, and written weekly evaluations by the participants’ employers. The third-party evaluator uses these data and fol- lowup information to provide objective program analysis. Yearly reports are distributed for public information and internal use. A study of the pro- gram using a control group and participant followup was conducted dur- ing all 3 years of RECAP activities by the University of Wisconsin, Center on Education and Work. Among the study’s conclusions were the follow- ing:

❑ Compared with RECAP graduates, RECAP clients who completed less than 3 months of the program were twice as likely to have an unsuc- cessful probation outcome.

❑ Compared with the study’s control group, RECAP clients were 2 times more likely not to commit a new crime.

❑ Members of the study’s control group were five times more likely to be unemployed than RECAP graduates after release to the community.

❑ Excluding probation holds, members of the control group on average had twice as many contacts with the Rock County Jail as did RECAP graduates.

❑ Overall, after 4 months of training, RECAP graduates increased grade levels on standardized tests in the following subjects: reading (one grade level), mathematics (two grade levels), and writing (one grade levels).

Implementation Problems and Successes All programs, and particularly new, innovative programs, have problems to overcome on the path to becoming long-term programs. RECAP is no exception. Problems that require creative solutions include:

118

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Obtaining Adequate and Ongoing Funding. Comprehensive program- ming requires a variety of resources and a large investment of time to meet the needs of inmates adequately. Companies use free inmate labor for 2 weeks. Employers give a portion of the wages the inmates would have earned to the program in the form of a donation if they are satisfied with the inmates’ work.

Obtaining Individual and Program Statistics. Obtaining and maintaining program data, which are important elements for evaluation and program improvement, require intensive staff involvement and access to adequate computer programs.

Scheduling Program Activities. Scheduling requests for inmates for commu- nity service and other projects requires extensive staff time and coordination.

Maintaining Core Program Numbers. Designated program space deter- mines the size of groups that can be served. Referrals from the courts are not always received in a consistent fashion, and inmates are sometimes re- moved for infractions. Every time the number of participants drops below the maximum number that can be served, the program cost is raised.

Making Time for Communication. Considerable time is required to allow staff to communicate and build a stronger program. The Inmate Review Committee meets weekly to assess student progress, and the partner agen- cies are required to communicate daily with each other.

Successes and Accomplishments. RECAP provided services to 327 in- mates in its first 3 years, and 49 percent of program participants gradu- ated. In addition, 89 percent of individuals receiving assistance had a recognized AODA need; 56 participants earned a high school equivalency diploma (71 individuals partially completed an equivalency diploma and many others received literacy or remedial instruction); and 194 individuals met the requirements to complete the course in 3 years. As of July 1997, the program had provided programming to 521 individuals.

Inmates also achieved the following accomplishments in the program’s on- the-job training courses: 92 received food service preparation certificates, 53 received food safety and sanitation national certification, 123 received custodial training certificates, 64 received landscaping or lawn care certifi- cates, 41 received construction certificates (third year only), 32 received painting or chain saw certificates (third year only), and 15 received wildlife assistant certification (first and second years only). In addition, from 1995 to 1997, RECAP participants earned 276 competency certificates in con- struction, custodial services, lawn care, food sanitation, painting, and his- torical preservation and renovation.

The RECAP/Alpha OJA construction grant completed its first year of op- eration, and 41 inmates completed the vocational program. Using commu- nity donations of building supplies worth more than $18,000, inmates

119

Programs in Correctional Settings

constructed a large storage garage. The Scans High School Equivalency has been approved by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and is assisting students. The county board funded RECAP for the interim period and included RECAP in its 1996 budget. County support in 1996 was $75,000; in 1997 it increased to $100,000.

Each RECAP participant earned an average of 105 hours of community ser- vice, and program participants earned a total of 694 days of good time at a savings to the county of $38,170. The RECAP/Alpha OJA grant has en- hanced opportunities that can be provided to inmates in this area. More than 11,000 hours of on-the-job training and community service were pro- vided at 21 sites from March to September 1995. The number of sites re- mained at 21 in 1997.

Reducing recidivism in Rock County is the core measure of RECAP’s effec- tiveness. Second-year statistics showed a recidivism rate for participants of 17 percent as compared with the 70 to 80 percent recidivism rate estimated for offenders in the county before the program began. The fifth-year recidi- vism rate was 26 percent. According to a third-party evaluator, RECAP graduates are twice as likely not to return to jail or prison as those not par- ticipating in RECAP.

Recidivism, academic growth, and vocational attainment are measurable, but do not provide a complete picture of program success. Other measures of success include:

❑ Maintaining a qualified staff dedicated to change and motivation.

❑ Moving from grant to county funding.

❑ Continuing positive participant testimony and action.

❑ Receiving public acceptance by the media, community, and employers.

❑ Obtaining the dynamic assistance of a broad-based advisory committee.

❑ Changing correctional officer attitudes toward education and rehabilitation.

❑ Having probation and parole agents play an active and supportive role because RECAP has provided assistance to their clients.

Prospects for Replication RECAP can be replicated nationwide with the expertise and commitment of local law enforcement agencies, community colleges, and the treatment community. RECAP completed its fifth year of operation in September 1997. Partners are available to assist others with information and staff de- velopment useful in replicating the model. Since the inception of RECAP, the partners have advocated for its development in other counties.

120

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Along with staff training possibilities, many program materials are avail- able for distribution. All materials have been field tested and have under- gone numerous revisions. Dissemination materials include course outlines, AODA pretest and posttests, work contracts, student vocational certifi- cates, SCANS high school equivalency curriculum, the RECAP participant handbook, and the RECAP manual.

Results from the University of Wisconsin evaluation of RECAP will in- clude a 3-year history of problems, successes, and recommendations. In addition, RECAP will participate in a U.S. Department of Education- funded research study on correctional education. The study’s findings will be available upon completion of the project.

Contact Information Erin Vince RECAP Program Manager Rock County Sheriff’s Department 200 U.S. Highway 14 East Janesville, WI 53545–9684 Phone: 608–757–7991 Fax: 608–757–7997

121

Programs in Correctional Settings

Wyoming: Department of Corrections Honor Farm Wild Horse Training Program Statement of the Problem To reduce the excess of wild horses in Wyoming, the State’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office developed a horse adoption program open to the public. However, because people were uneasy about adopting wild horses, the horses required to be trained. In September 1987, the Wyo- ming Department of Corrections (DOC) and BLM signed a cooperative agreement to establish the Wyoming Honor Farm, a minimum-security fa- cility that gives inmates who have committed crimes ranging from simple property offenses to first-degree murder an opportunity to train horses and engage in personal development in a healthy, secure environment. The farm is located in central Wyoming and houses 150 inmates and 34 staff members. The first shipment of horses arrived at the facility in Febru- ary 1988.

The facility houses both long- and short-term inmates. Wyoming’s current inmate classification system allows inmates to progress through the system to minimum-security institutions and to community placement over time. When this classification system began, long-term inmates who had been placed at the Wyoming Honor Farm facility were allowed to stay through a grandfather clause. Their presence gives stability to the facility’s inmate population.

Goals and Objectives The goals of the program are to provide a source of revenue, provide a unique opportunity for the staff to utilize the philosophy of the institution while managing offenders, provide legitimate work opportunities for the inmate population, and encourage and assist offenders in becoming law- abiding citizens in a respectful, principle-centered, dignified manner while exercising reasonable, safe, secure, and humane control.

In pursuit of these goals, the program has established the following objec- tives: research the institution’s physical plant needs for training and han- dling wild horses; select personnel to supervise the program; develop the training program; develop a mechanism for dispersing adopted horses; build trust, discourage lying, encourage individuality, and improve com- munication skills among inmates; teach anger management to inmates; and connect the program’s philosophy to the State’s institutional counsel- ing program.

122

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Components The program was founded on four principles: respect, responsibility, coop- eration, and communication. As the training facilities began to form, one of the program’s most important objectives was selecting a training method and a program manager. A decision was made to use a nonrestraint method of training modeled after Ray Hunt’s innovative training philoso- phy. The tenets of his training philosophy are:

❑ Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult.

❑ Be particular so the horse learns to be particular.

❑ Try soft firmness instead of hard tightness.

❑ Do not attempt to direct the horse’s attention if you do not have it.

❑ Notice the smallest change or the slightest attempt and reward the horse.

❑ Know the difference between firm and hard.

❑ Let your idea become the horse’s idea.

This training method was selected because it coincided with the way in which the inmate population is managed at the Honor Farm institution. Some examples of this institutional philosophy are:

❑ Believe in inmates’ capacity to change their behavior.

❑ Give inmates legitimate opportunities to enhance their self-esteem.

❑ Treat inmates with respect and dignity.

❑ Treat inmates respectfully without compromising professional distance.

❑ Do not impose rules, regulations, or regimentation that cannot be reasonably tied to the need to maintain order and security.

❑ Send clear messages about behavior that is not tolerated.

❑ Punish swiftly and harshly behavior that threatens order and security.

Offenders typically classified to the institution have no experience training horses. Their lack of preconceived ideas about the process is a benefit. Usually, the horse teaches or trains the inmate. Horses experience prob- lems during training similar to characteristics commonly displayed by of- fenders, and the training program attempts to address these problems.

123

Programs in Correctional Settings

Anger. Displaying anger is an important part of many criminals’ lives. By responding angrily to anything they perceive as opposing what they want, criminals attempt to control people and situations. The training program takes advantage of this situation by showing inmates that success can be achieved by remaining calm, listening to instructions from staff, and deal- ing with situations rationally. The horse demands that inmates behave calmly and rationally. The staff strive to make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult.

Uniqueness. Criminals emphasize their complete difference from other people; they perceive themselves to be special. The training methods used by the program are the same for every horse and for every inmate, and when an inmate steps into the round corral with a wild horse for the first time, he feels the way that every other inmate has felt in that situation.

Lying. For many criminals, lying is a way of life. It is incorporated into their basic makeup and feeds other criminal patterns. Habitual lying is more common than premeditated lying because the criminal automatically defines reality through lies. In the training program, the “show me “ phi- losophy discourages any untruths. If the inmate states, “I can ride the horse and pick up all of his feet, the staff response is “show me.”

Trust. Criminals often do not trust others, but they demand that others trust them. Sometimes trust of others is sincere, but it is inconsistent. Dur- ing training situations, trust is a serious issue. Survival of both the inmate and the horse depends on trust throughout the relationship.

Counseling. All inmates are required to participate in counseling groups. Is- sues regarding anger, uniqueness, lying, and trust are reinforced by the coun- seling department in group situations. The program’s philosophy is blended into practical application that benefits both the horse and the inmate.

Inmate Incentive. Inmates in Wyoming DOC institutions are required to have a full-time job assignment. Participation in the Wild Horse Training Program satisfies this requirement. Inmates are paid from the Inmate In- centive Pay Fund, with rates ranging from $25 to $95 per month. With this money, they are expected to provide their own clothing and personal items, excluding medical expenses.

Inspection and Dispersal of Horses. The inspection process ensures that all horses ready for dispersal meet contract requirements. The BLM project inspector checks each animal before it is adopted. The Honor Farm makes the horses available to the general public and agencies. Three public adop- tion sessions are scheduled annually. Federal and State agency adoptions are scheduled as needed.

124

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Results and Impact Performance Measures The program measures success by the following:

❑ Number of horses successfully trained, inspected, and dispersed.

❑ Number of horses receiving specialized training for adoption to emo- tionally and physically disabled children, U.S. Forest Service agencies, and the Boy Scouts of America.

❑ Positive media coverage.

❑ Number of inmates successfully participating in the program.

❑ The progress inmates make in counseling programs using skills they have learned in the program.

Implementation Problems and Successes Implementation problems were minor. Developing a contract and satisfy- ing the Federal and State attorneys involved in the project was time con- suming. A larger concern was providing adequate security for a wild horse adoption program open to the public and housed on the grounds of a cor- rectional facility. To make security manageable, the Honor Farm devel- oped a strict adoption system that allows the public to adopt horses three times a year.

BLM originally asked that all horses assigned to the program be saddle trained. This meant that a person adopting a horse would be able to take it home, saddle it, and perform normal animal husbandry tasks. Saddle training, however, is a very labor-intensive and time-consuming assign- ment, especially for the inexperienced trainer. The desired length of stay for horses in the program is 60 days, but to meet BLM training require- ments, they occasionally had to be trained for a longer period of time. To expedite the process, horses are now only halter trained.

Successes and Accomplishments Success in the implementation stage of the program was due to the efforts of staff members who gave unconditionally of their time and knowledge. Daily team meetings were held from the time the program was first con- sidered until the first horses arrived from BLM. All problems were ad- dressed within 24 hours.

Accomplishments to date are numerous. During the 10 years the program has operated, approximately 381 inmates have worked with wild horses in some capacity. The program has trained more than 1,600 wild horses. Horses have been adopted by the U.S. Forest Service in Arizona, New

125

Programs in Correctional Settings

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the Boy Scouts of America; and the United States Marine Color Guard. The program trains horses to work with emo- tionally and physically challenged children at the State Training School in Lander, Wyoming, and the Kentucky Horse Park received 12 matched bay horses to work with underprivileged and delinquent children. The experi- ment in Kentucky has been so successful that the horse park requested 12 more horses. In addition, interest in the training program from other cor- rectional systems has been high. The Louisiana Department of Corrections has adopted 30 horses to be trained by inmates in their system, and these horses will be used to supervise maximum security inmates at the Angola Unit. During the past year, six horses were trained for the U.S. Forest Ser- vice, Bloomfield, New Mexico, and five horses were trained for the Girl Scouts of America. Additionally, five horses are being trained for the U.S. Forest Service, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Media coverage of the program includes segments on TBS, CNN, and the Today Show, and documentary filmmakers from France, Germany, and Ja- pan have completed segments on the program highlighting the program’s benefits for both the inmate and the horse. The program has also been strongly supported by the private sector, which has made valuable dona- tions of construction and training materials.

Prospects for Replication Replication of this program would be difficult. The contract currently in effect will expire in October 1997, and no major changes are anticipated. BLM has promoted the Adopt a Horse Program so effectively that the pub- lic is willing to attempt to train the horses on its own. The original concept behind the program and the involvement of correctional facilities was that the training would make the horses more adoptable. Although this is still true today, demand for horses has increased to the point where there is no need for additional training to meet BLM management objectives.

The Honor Farm Institution developed a Registered Quarter Horse Program to take the place of the BLM Wild Horse Training Program if funding was ex- hausted and the contract allowed to expire. However, the program is being phased out because of weak local demand for registered horses. If local de- mands increase, the program will be reevaluated. If a contract can be secured to develop a training program in another jurisdiction, it is important to in- volve all departments of the correctional institution, ranging from construc- tion and security to counselors in case management programming.

126

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Contact Information Tony Thornton Deputy Warden Wyoming Department of Corrections 40 Honor Farm Road Riverton, WY 82501 Phone: 307–856–9578 Fax: 307–856–9015

Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general informa- tion or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with State and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by:

❒ Mail P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 1–800–688–4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

❒ Fax 301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand 1–800–688–4252

❒ BJA Home Page http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web http://www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter E-mail to [email protected] Leave the subject line blank In the body of the message, type: subscribe justinfo [your name]

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/BJA Permit No. G-91

BJA World Wide Web Address For a copy of this document online, as well as more information on BJA,

check the BJA Home Page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA