WK1CCTCH1

1 Introduction and Overview of Correctional Counseling and Treatment Albert R. Roberts and Pia Biswas Correctional counseling and rehabilitation, in the broadest sense, seeks to transform a convicted felon into a responsible and productive member of society. The focus in correctional counseling should be on changing behavior and helping offenders to enhance mental health and cognitive functioning as well as academic, vocational, and social skills. This chapter includes the summary findings of a nationwide survey on the state of the art of correctional counseling and treatment, staffing patterns, medical and mental health needs of offenders, and academic and vocational education programs. Twenty different state departments of corrections (DOCs) will be highlighted in terms of specific evidence-based assessment counseling and treatment programs. This chapter is not designed to give definitive solutions to all problems and issues in the correctional counseling of offenders; rather the goal is to formalize ideas, raise issues, and document best practices from which effective programs can be replicated. A foundation will be delineated so that program planners and administrators may better be able to meet the individual and special needs of the inmate population. There is wide variation in corrections from state to state and differences within some states on whether offender counseling and treatment programs are offered on a very limited scale or on a daily and intensive level. Correctional administrators have a tremendous amount of discretionary power in terms of the extent to which offenders are provided with opportunities for individual and group counseling, substance abuse treatment, and academic education or vocational training. The underlying basis of whether correctional administrators are punitive versus rehabilitation-oriented grows out of their political beliefs and views of both inmates in general and specific types of offenders. We believe that through intensive counseling and treatment most offenders have the ability to change their antisocial and lawbreaking patterns of behavior as long as they are motivated to change. We also firmly believe that if you treat inmates like wild animals and continually punish them, in all likelihood, they will become more hardened and violent upon release. Therefore, the objective of this chapter and the text is to put “corrections” back into policies and practices with offenders. This can be done when a full range of opportunities for individual and group treatment is provided to all inmates regardless of the offense they have been committed for. TREATMENT STRATEGY The availability of program and service choices should be maximized to the extent that each offender can participate in rehabilitation programs. The philosophy underlying this therapeutic approach is that each person possesses unique needs, abilities and dispositions, and requires a flexible program. Instead of depersonalizing offenders through rigid regimentation of their time, attempts should be made to bolster self-confidence, individuality, and socialized identity. Most men and women have the potential to rationally and selectively plan their own destiny, and come to grips with the problems of free choice in our complex industrialized society. Offenders have failed in society; in order to motivate them for success after release, facilities should resemble free society in some areas, such as providing several program options. An offender’s chances for success the second time around are diminished if conditions in the prison are totally unlike those outside. “Success” in a traditional prison is dependent on the abnegation of responsibility for one’s actions and passive acceptance of living conditions, food, medical services, and so on. Success in the outside world, however, is not measured by those criteria but by independently meeting one’s own needs, working for a living, earning a good wage, having self-confidence, and attaining prestige in the eyes of the community members. To attain success after release, offenders must be able to handle free choice wisely and make decisions which are accepted as law-abiding. They can benefit from intensive individual and group counseling or staff role models, but, most importantly, they must be aware that to go straight and “make it” in free society depends on a willingness to work toward goals, make sacrifices, and be responsible for themselves and their family. The rigid paternalistic correctional philosophy of “I know what is best for you” has failed time and time again. In a truly therapeutic correctional environment, each individual has the continuous opportunity to make a number of program choices. By choosing to pursue a particular vocational area, for example, it is hoped that inmates will learn to make rational decisions, and transfer this ability to the community when they are released. The organizational milieu in most correctional institutions is conflict-prone. The emphasis on security and punitive control measures exerted by custodial personnel all too often conflict with the therapeutic objectives of professionally trained treatment specialists. A treatment specialist provides supportive counseling and promotes initiative and positive self-direction among prison inmates. Conflict arises because most correctional officers have little training in human relations and are threatened by the nonpunitive approach of treatment specialists. For example, a counselor may recommend that inmates become involved with vocational training in the sheet metal shop; he or she may also order 20 pounds of clay for inmate hobby time. Although professional counselors recognize that clay modeling provides a healthy, nonviolent outlet for a prisoners’ aggressive energies, and vocational training in a marketable skill contributes to rehabilitation goals, many guards are disdainful of such efforts, regarding them as permissive and a means of coddling inmates. From the guard’s frame of reference, the clay will only be modeled into a replica of a 38-revolver or made to resemble a man’s head, to be placed on a cot so as not to arouse suspicion while the inmate attempts to escape. The sheet metal shop is thought of as the place where all the shivs and shanks are made. The diametrically opposed attitudes of the untrained guard and the treatment specialist undermine and inhibit the rehabilitation effort of the treatment team. The custodial orientation leads to the growth of an inmate code that requires loyalty to other inmates, opposition to the entire prison staff, and at most lip service to so-called treatment programs. There are several different conceptions of the ideal characteristics of therapeutic milieu, but the most significant aspect is that, if the inmate is to achieve any self-respect, he or she must be treated as an individual worthy of the respect of others. When both professional and nonprofessional staff work together to provide a therapeutic atmosphere and when inmates have the opportunity to make decisions and choose programs options, the necessary climate for a therapeutic milieu emerges. Early rehabilitation efforts overlooked the relationship between fostering positive attitudes and values and building the offender’s initiative, self-direction, and responsibility. If rehabilitation is to be a reality, the development of a therapeutic community is of paramount importance. In accordance with the psychotherapeutic ideals of Maxwell Jones, a therapeutic community allows the inmate to “act out” within acceptable limits and to become motivated to participate in available rehabilitation programs. The major objective is to reverse the regimented authoritarian structure of traditional prisons by encouraging communication among all levels of staff, and between staff and inmates. Several therapeutic communities can be set up at each correctional facility so that inmates can begin to act responsibly for the welfare of their community. Although it is more difficult to initiate therapeutic communities in the highly regimented structure of most maximum-security institutions, they can be developed and operated effectively. In maximum-security prisons, each tier or cell block can be a therapeutic community; in minimum-security settings, the location of the community can be a dormitory. Within these physical confines, the inmates and staff make collective decisions based on democratic principles. Examples of some of the decisions that can be made are permitting of inmates with minimum-security ratings to attend a funeral of a close family member in another state without a guard, allowing the better educated inmates to tutor educationally disadvantaged adults in an inner-city basic education program, initiating a program to train inmates and guards to work as crisis counselors on a prison suicide prevention team, and suspending a correctional officer who harasses the inmates by turning off the television 15 minutes before the suspenseful climax of the Wednesday night movie. The primary goal of comprehensive therapeutic services is to help offenders build self-esteem, adjust to the correctional facility, learn to communicate more effectively with family and community members, and be able to confront and act on alternatives available to them as they consider their future. In some cases, these goals can be accomplished through informal, everyday contact with staff and through the group counseling sessions. In many other cases, individual methods of treatment will be more beneficial. INTERNAL VERSUS EXTERNAL CONTROL Individual and group counseling is recommended for all committed offenders. Several techniques of counseling should be employed by the staff in fostering offender’s increased self-awareness of self-destructive patterns and appropriate alternative behaviors. Some of the available treatment approaches are behavioral diagnosis, cognitive-behavioral treatment, counseling with focus on internal-external locus of control, milieu therapy, family counseling, psychodrama, and guided group interaction. Counselors, and other correctional treatment specialists, are concerned with determining why some inmates seem motivated to try to reach socially acceptable goals, while other inmates do not seem to expend any task- or goal-oriented effort. Characteristics of inmates who do not manifest goal-oriented behavior are feelings of helplessness, alienation, and powerlessness. Offenders who are motivated to invest the necessary efforts to attain specific goals appear to be more capable of coping with the situations that affect their daily lives. The degree to which inmates feel they have control over their environment has a significant influence on their behavior. The control expectancy notion allows treatment specialists to observe offenders with regard to the degree to which they feel able to give direction to, or have control over, their own lives. The “internal-external locus of control” is derived from J. B. Rotter’s social learning theory. Internal control refers to the feeling of individuals that they have some measure of control over their destiny. They feel that the outcomes of positive and/or negative events are consequences of their own actions. On the other hand, those individuals who perceive that control is outside themselves and that their destiny is in the hands of fate, chance, luck, or powerful others have an external locus of control. The implications of studying the internal-external control orientation relate to the desire for identifying and changing inmates’ feelings of lack of control over their environment. If inmates believe that their actions can positively affect their future, there is a greater chance of their actively participating in a successful rehabilitation plan. In changing the low expectancies of inmates with an external orientation, the goals are to increase their literacy rate and improve goal-oriented behavior. Marvin Seeman’s research findings indicated that inmates with an internal locus of control were more willing to correct their deficiencies through participation in rehabilitative programs. He presented three kinds of information to 85 inmates at Chillicothe Federal Prison to measure their expectations of controlling their own destiny. The three types of information related to the individual’s awareness of and ability to learn about the following: successful achievement of parole, the immediate reformatory situation, and their long-range prospects for a criminal career. Seeman’s study indicated that “internals” retained a significantly greater number of parole-related items than did “externals,” but no significant difference was found in their ability to learn the other two kinds of information. Achieving parole status is one of the most important goals of an inmate. Obtaining parole puts the offender in a better position to control his environment. Therefore, an internal inmate would be more likely to invest the effort necessary to learn the information relevant to obtaining a parole than would an external inmate. The internal is motivated to learn information related to achieving parole because he or she views this information as essential to achieving this goal. In contrast, the external, perceiving that obtaining parole is unrelated to his or her efforts, would see little purpose in learning such information. Research by Peters in a medium-security institution for adult felons in North Carolina provides further evidence of inmates’ differing motivations for participating in occupational education programs. His results indicated that internals were more likely to participate in courses such as baking, small engine repair, typing, and high school refresher courses than were externals. Treatment specialists should receive training that will enable them to foster an increased sense of control in external inmates. Implementation of the prison option system developed in this chapter can increase inmates’ cooperation and participation in treatment programs by allowing the inmates to have a feeling of control over some of the events and programs that most directly affect them. The authors have emphasized the need to reduce the external’s low expectancy of control, thereby encouraging self-direction and goal-oriented behavior. In contrast, the inmate with extremely high internal control can be just as maladjusted as the extremely external individual. Highly internal offenders have been referred to as sociopaths, who feel compelled to dominate their environment. Two counseling approaches may be recommended for the “sociopath”: helping them accept and adjust the aspects of their environment which they cannot or should not control and helping them to channel their aggressive energies into constructive and socially acceptable pursuits. Methods for helping externals to become more internally controlled are to reinforce internal statements, to replace external control statements with internal questions, and to assist inmates to recognize the consequences of their behavior. This may be accomplished by helping them search for alternate behaviors that could have changed the outcome of events in the past and that can influence current and future events. The relationship between individual expectancies of control and inmate behavior has been shown. Treatment efforts geared toward reducing extreme expectancies of internal or external control may well result in inmates’ improved self-concept, participation in rehabilitation programs, and successful readjustment to community life. GROUP THERAPY Group treatment programs in which small groups of offenders meet with a leader are becoming increasingly popular in correctional settings. Pressure to adopt group methods of treatment may be an outgrowth of the fact that: it is less costly to hire a group therapist who works with many inmates at one time than it is to employ a counselor who sees inmates only on an individual basis. Also, some prison administrators subscribe to the widely accepted sociological theories of crime causation which imply that criminal behavior is learned through association with deviant peer groups. By this reasoning, an anticriminal peer group would be a viable means for unlearning or renouncing criminal behaviors. For group treatment to be effective, the group leader should be aware of the need to overcome initial resistance and conning on the part of group members. There are two distinct classes of group treatment with offenders—group psychotherapy and group counseling. The role of the group leader/therapist varies accordingly. The primary methodological distinction between the two is that group psychotherapy focuses on a psychotherapeutic approach toward the individual group members, while group counseling focuses on changing behaviors and interaction of the members through group process. There are various advantages of group therapy for offender rehabilitation. Often times, individualized therapy is not as effective as group therapy because inmates endure an enormous amount of peer pressure to conform to certain types of behavior. Criminal behavior tends to thrive in a criminal subculture, where many people share certain views that promote and justify deviant behavior. It can be said that a vast majority of inmates were exposed to that subculture, which led to their deviant acts. Prisons naturally are a haven for these views since most criminals retain their beliefs from the criminal subculture during the time of their incarceration. Therefore, creating a change in the views and attitudes through therapy of the group, as opposed to the individual, allows for a greater likelihood that new views and attitudes will be adopted and sustained because they will now be part of the subculture. If a few or many of the inmates begin to embrace what they learn during the counseling sessions, the attitude of the subculture as a whole will begin to change as well. Additionally, group therapy allows for the group specialist to simultaneously reach out to more individuals, whereas it may be more difficult to set up individual sessions for each inmate. Also, if sessions are set up for individuals, they probably will not be held as frequently as group sessions are held. The primary goal of group therapy is to prepare inmates for life in the outside world by teaching them to become law-abiding citizens. A crucial part of attaining this goal is to ensure that the subculture within the prison shifts toward more socially acceptable behavior. Though there has not been any definitive reason to believe that group therapy, in and of itself, reduces the recidivism rate of offenders, it appears that it does at least improve the interaction between offenders in prison. Staff members also reported that their communication with inmates undergoing group therapy had improved and that those individuals seemed to get into less trouble on average than other inmates. Individuals who seem to have benefited the most from the group therapy sessions were those who were more extroverted and open to new ideas. Additionally, those who committed multiple offenses in the company of others were influenced the most by group therapy sessions. In sharp contrast, the introverts, or loners, tended to be less receptive to the therapy treatment and were more likely to recidivate upon release. Therefore, those who are most likely to be influenced by peers are more likely to adapt to the group therapy methods. Voluntary participation in group therapy will lead these extroverted individuals to emerge and self-select themselves for treatment. Staff members can also assist in the process to ensure that those who are susceptible to treatment are the ones being selected for the group therapy. The type of leaders selected for group therapy sessions does not seem to make much of a difference in terms of the effectiveness of the treatment as long as the leaders are able to conduct discussions and convey warmth and encouragement to the offenders. Other factors, such as the specific type of training or background of the leader, do not seem to have as much of an impact on the level of effectiveness. Group therapy should mainly focus on creating discussions, which are the most conducive way to promote active participation from all of the group members. Once group members are engaged in the discussion, they are more receptive to the ideas that are being conveyed to them. Since group therapy essentially tries to persuade offenders to adopt new and more socially acceptable behavior, the best way to go about this is by reinforcing positive behavior and discouraging any antisocial behavior. Offenders should be seated in a circle to promote a roundtable-type discussion. There should be at least more than a handful of individuals in the group to prevent anyone from feeling uncomfortable or defensive; however, there should not be too many members, which may cause some to feel intimidated by the large crowd. The topics to be discussed in therapy sessions will vary from one group to another. Inmates may wish to discuss problems or issues that they are presently dealing with or topics in which they all share interest. Incorporating psychodrama (to be discussed next) allows for self-expression and discussion. Regardless, one topic that should be discussed is the inmates’ life in the outside community upon release. If possible, group members should be selected in accordance with the peer groups that naturally form in the institution. Since those who are most susceptible to treatment are the extroverted individuals who are influenced by their peers, creating a group in which these individuals are among their peer, will allow for more persuasion into socially acceptable behavior. By experiencing treatment as a group, the individuals may feel as though they are beginning to conform to the new norms (post-therapy) of the group. Thereafter, the whole group’s views may begin to shift away from deviant behavior and may transition toward more law-abiding behavior. This, in turn, will help to prepare them for interaction and acceptance in the outside community. Psychodrama Psychodrama is a group therapeutic technique involving the dramatic enactment of events and issues that are important to the individual. The technique has been used mainly with people suffering from alcohol, marital, psychotic, and neurotic problems. Psychodrama is, however, a valuable technique for prison inmates, though it has been used by only a few innovative correctional psychodramatists. When psychodrama is used with offenders, the scenes that are acted out may be part of their past, present, or future lifestyle. Psychodrama offers offenders an opportunity to act out antisocial and illegal behaviors in a controlled setting. In addition to depicting an important issue, it provides for open discussion and candid feedback by other group members. The word drama comes from a Greek word meaning “action” or “a thing done.” J. L. Moreno, the renowned founder of this approach, defines psychodrama as “the science which explores the truth by dramatic methods.” Ideally, a particular area should be designated for psychodrama. The groups should know that they can step up on the platform whenever their emotions require dramatic expression. Psychodrama can provide inmates with an outlet for characterizing experiences that are of such intensity that words alone are insufficient. The unique population of the prison makes the reaction to psychodrama different from what it is on the outside. Inmates who hear through the grapevine about a new group therapy approach may well be cynical and skeptical that it will turn out to be a psychologist’s leading another group meeting. But psychodrama is different; it allows inmates to vent their pent-up hostility and frustration at the system and authority figures, at the fear of losing a girlfriend or spouse, and even over the anxiety of reintegration into an unknown society. Guided by a skilled therapist trained in psychological and dramatic techniques, psychodrama is a new and unique method of treatment for inmates. This process is especially valuable in “future projections” in which the inmate, role-playing a future situation, can get the feel of actions, attitudes, and responses commensurate with a law-abiding person. Future situations that may pose a particular problem for offenders are applying for and maintaining a job, being reunited with family, participating in community life, and relating to parole and other correctional personnel. In psychodrama, the pressure of the other group members makes distortion or conning difficult and causes inmates to more carefully assess their words and actions. Through psychodrama, offenders are able to reenact past behavior, project future actions, and reflect upon effective methods for coping with life’s difficulties—without resorting to unlawful activities. CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY AND ADDICTION TREATMENT Convicted felons tend to be abusers of both alcohol and illegal drugs. In fact, a large percentage of state inmate populations are substance abusers. The percentage of the total state inmate population with drug addiction problems ranges from a low of 25 percent in North Carolina to a high of 80–85 percent in Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, and New Hampshire. States also differ in the types of chemical dependency programs they provide, vanaina from 6- to 12-month therapeatice communities to 12-step programs that meet 7 days a week. Some states like South Carolina have Addiction Treatment Units (ATU) where a therapeutic community model is maintained 24 hours a day, with three to four intensive groups per day. Other states like Wisconsin have residential treatment programs specializing in substance abuse treatment, aftercare and transitional programs, and treatment for dually diagnosed inmates. Other states like Maryland have modified therapeutic communities with an emphasis on cognitive-behavior counseling. The three different types of programs for chemical dependency are Residential, Intensive Outpatient, and Outpatient. The Residential Program provides an entire unit of housing for inmates participating in substance abuse treatment. In the duration of this program, various methods are used, including acupuncture, mental health, therapeutic communities, and cognitive behavioral approaches. The program is for 6 months and offers two group sessions per week as well as one individual session every two weeks. The Intensive Outpatient Program is offered to inmates who do not reside in a special unit but receive rigorous treatment. The program runs for approximately 6 months and targets cognitive behavioral rehabilitation. Finally, the Outpatient Program is offered as an aftercare program, which consists of weekly group meetings after the completion of the two previous programs. This type of treatment is provided to the inmate indefinitely or until the time of release. PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES This type of treatment provides inmates with the opportunity to discuss any issues of concern in the protected group environment. Individuals receive feedback from the psychologist as well as other members of the group. The objective is to enhance offenders’ problem-solving skills. There is no prerequisite in receiving psychological services; however, preference is given to those inmates who are monitored clinically. Additionally, there is finite time frame for the sessions; inmates may receive them as needed on an indefinite basis. ANGER MANAGEMENT Anger Management Group therapy is provided for inmates to help them determine what causes anger and discover methods by which the anger can be controlled. Elements include relapse prevention, stress reduction, conflict resolution, and training in assertive and rational behavior. By teaching offenders about anger as well as other negative emotions, negative and aggressive behavior can be prevented. Learning how to control their anger allows inmates to improve self-expression and their relationships with others. The average duration for the therapy course ranges from 8 to 20 weeks, with an average of 12 weeks. Classes are held once a week for approximately 90 minutes on average. COGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS The Cognitive Interventions Program is presented in a group format and strives to help participants better understand themselves and train them to better control their lives. The underlying notion of the program is that how individuals think determines how they will act; so if we can modify their thought process, the corresponding actions will be sure to follow. By showing offenders how to control their thoughts, they are able to control more aspects of their lives. The duration of this program ranges from 12 to 36 weeks, with an average of 15 weeks. The average groups meets approximately twice per week for 2 hours; however, this varies slightly from one location to the next. NATIONAL SURVEY FINDINGS In reviewing the national survey findings, we were struck by the low priority given to employing treatment staff—social workers, psychologists, or counselors—by many of the state correctional systems. In sharp contrast, many states have a low ratio of guards per inmate possibly due to an administrative priority of custody and punishment or to the strong unions, which advocate for custodial officers. More specifically, two southern states stand out as deficient when it comes to employing full-time clinical staff. Mississippi’s DOC has 23 counselors and 1 psychologist treating 23,996 inmates, with a ratio of 1 clinician per 1,000 inmates. There’s a dramatic difference when examining the ratio of inmates per guard 1:13 with a total of 1,843 guards. On a more positive note, several states stand out for their demonstrated commitment to offender counseling and rehabilitation. New Hampshire and Wisconsin seem to be innovative and progressive with a ratio of 1 clinician for every 35.5 inmates incarcerated in the state of New Hampshire and 1 clinician for every 64 inmates incarcerated in the state of Wisconsin. At the same time, these two rehabilitation-oriented states are still concerned for public safety and holding inmates accountable for their behavior, with a ratio of 1 guard for every 4 inmates in New Hampshire and 1 guard for every 6.1 inmates in Wisconsin. The state of Washington has an even more impressive record with a ratio of 1 clinician for every 34.4 inmates and 1 guard for every 5.4 inmates—the best ratio of the states which were examined. EXEMPLARS OF SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS Examining the Wisconsin DOC sex offender treatment program in more detail conveys the high level of commitment that the state has toward the rehabilitation of offenders. Wisconsin offers a selection of different offender programs, which include educational-based programs, psychotherapeutic interventions, and customized therapy groups that cater to the needs and risk level of the offenders. Participants of the programs undergo an evaluation and are provided with the treatment, that best suits offender’s individual needs. All three programs manage the offender’s risk of recidivism through supervision and polygraph exams. Involvement in at least one of the programs is mandatory under the offender’s supervision rules. Failure of offenders to comply can lead to increased sanctions. A plethora of factors are considered before placing an offender into a program, including the length of the offender’s sentence, parole eligibility, mandatory release dates, the offender’s willingness to participate in treatment, the accessibility of programs that best cater to the offender’s needs, the amount of security risk that the offender poses, and other program needs of the offender. Once these factors are considered, the offender is then placed into one of the treatment programs: the Education Awareness Sex Offender Program, Pretreatment/Deniers, Sex Offender Treatment, Sex Offender Treatment Program, or Beacon Residential Program, as well as programs for juvenile offenders. The Education Awareness Sex Offender Treatment Program is an entry-level program designed to prepare offenders for a more comprehensive treatment program. In this program, offenders receive approximately 25 hours of programming in 1.2 to 2.5-hour increments for groups ranging from 12 to 25 offenders. The staff generally consists of two people who are either psychologists or licensed social workers. The waiting list for the program varies from 12 to 24 months. The Deniers program is a mandatory program for all sex offenders. The offenders in this group represent a wide range of resistance to programming, from vehement denial to reducing the significance of the offense. The program’s goal is to encourage offenders to participate in treatment in a nonthreatening manner by informing the offenders that they will ultimately require treatment to reduce the risk of recidivism. This program is offered for 3 to 4 months and meets once a week for 2 hours. Groups of 10 to 12 offenders are supervised by one or two staff members, a psychologist or a social worker. Average waiting lists for these programs are relatively short, ranging from 3 to 4 months. The Sex Offender Treatment (SOT) provides therapeutic interventions and is voluntarily attended by the offender. A majority of the treatment groups consist of a heterogeneous mix of offenders who show a less compulsive and repetitive pattern of sexual deviancy. Offenders who require special attention are placed in targeted offender groups such as SOT Female Offenders, SOT Spanish-speaking, SOT Lighthouse for the lower functioning, SOT Special Management Unit for the cognitively challenged and/or emotionally disturbed, SOT Child Victim, and SOT Adult Victim. The general group program runs from 6 to 12 months and meets once or twice a week for 1.5 to 2 hours for groups of 6 to 12 offenders. The staff consists of either two psychologists or one psychologist facilitator in conjunction with one treatment specialist, crisis intervention worker, or social worker. The Sex Offender Treatment Program varies a bit from the program mentioned above in that it is a long-term residential program for offenders who display predictable patterns of compulsive and repetitive acts of sexual deviancy. The course of the program is 152 weeks and is provided to groups of 12 offenders. The staff consists of one Psychologist supervisor, one unit manager, one psychological services associate, two psychologists, two social workers, and one treatment sergeant. The average waiting list varies for this program, depending on the offender. The Beacon Residential Program is a new three-phase residential program, which is an alternative to the traditional sex offender program. The program attempts to change impulsive behavior by gaining an understanding of the offender’s past to create a relapse-prevention plan and to change any dynamic risk factors. The length of the program is approximately 104 weeks with groups of 8 to 10 offenders. The staff includes approximately five people, including at least one psychologist and four social workers. The average wait for this program is approximately 96 months but is less for those who have a Sex Offender Treatment Program need. Special programs also exist for juvenile offenders, which are part of comprehensive four-phase treatment plan. The four-phase program addresses offense description, sex history, social history, and relapse prevention. Youths must satisfactorily complete one phase of treatment to move up to the next phase. The length of the program ranges from 1 to 1.5 years and is offered to groups of 8 to 10 offenders. The staff consists of psychologists, social workers, and youth counselors. The average waiting lists ranges from no wait to 6 weeks, depending on the location. COMMUNITY AFTERCARE Although various types of drug abuse treatment in prison are extremely beneficial for offenders, community aftercare is an essential step in reducing relapse and recidivism. Community aftercare essentially provides individuals with treatment after release into the community to assist in the rehabilitation of the individual. In order for aftercare to be most effective, it should mimic the type of treatment offered during incarceration. Whether offered during supervision or after supervision has ended, it helps to maintain discipline among offenders. Intensive drug treatment programs focus on cognitive and behavioral treatment, group therapy, health and wellness, and role-playing, as well as techniques to boost self-esteem. Many programs hire ex-addicts to serve as examples for the groups, some even train the group. Treatment programs during incarceration can last anywhere from 6 to 12 months, however, aftercare does not have a definitive time frame. Some programs screen inmates to see which individuals would be best suited for particular programs, while others take all. Each drug treatment program varies in its approach. For example, the Key-Crest Program (Martin, 1995) is an intervention program which has three phases. The first phase is therapeutic community for inmates in prison. The second phase entails releasing inmates into a community work release center; here, they have jobs but still reside in a facility and continue to receive treatment from phase one. The last phase releases individuals into the community under some form of supervision. The results of the program show that residential treatment in conjunction with the aftercare significantly reduced recidivism rates. Oftentimes, intervention after release is more effective than treatment during incarceration. According to the New Vision residential treatment program, individuals who participated in aftercare, in addition to treatment during incarceration, had a recidivism rate of 7 percent for new convictions, whereas individuals who did not participate in aftercare had a recidivism rate of 16 percent. The study examined individuals within six months of release. Additionally, a study conducted by Wexler also confirms that those who had received community aftercare were considered lower-risk offenders than those who did not receive the aftercare. Therefore, the effectiveness of treatment during incarceration can be increased with community aftercare post-release. In this text, we will examine various facets of the corrections systems and make recommendations as to the effective treatment and rehabilitation approaches. PRISONER RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS Approximately 650,000 prisoners are released from federal and state prisons into communities throughout the nation each year. According to the 2006 National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices report, about 67 percent (435,500) are rearrested and 50 percent (325,000) are re-incarcerated within 3 years of release. In past decades many of these ex-offenders have not been prepared to obtain realistic and marketable job skills, steady employment, substance abuse and mental health services, and/or subsidized and transitional housing upon release. Because of the dearth of prison vocational training and counseling programs, and prisoner re-entry programs available during the 1980s and 1990s, many released offenders commit new offenses and/or violate parole policies within 3 years of release. A promising major federal initiative began in 2001. The Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative was developed by the Federal Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institute of Corrections. Cosponsors of this large project also include the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This major national project provides funding to develop federal, state, and local community-based transition and re-entry programs for juvenile and adult ex-offenders. The overridding goal of prisoner re-entry programs is to help ex-offenders seek, find, and maintain employment as well as the full range of housing and social services. In recent years, this federally funded program has received increased funding. In 2002, $100 million was given to 68 programs in 49 states to support prisoner re-entry programs. In 2005, President Bush proposed and then supported a $300 million 4-year expansion of the federal prisoner re-entry program. There are many examples of comprehensive prisoner re-entry programs. For example, the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices is currently operating seven prisoner re-entry academies in six states–Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Virginia. On the local level, Exodus Transitional Community Program in East Harlem, New York, seems to be highly effective in preventing recidivism. It served 213 ex-offenders in 2002, and just 6 were returned to prison. Exodus served 290 ex-offenders in 2003, and only 3 of the men were returned to prison. The City of Memphis, Tennessee developed the Second Chance re-entry program over three years ago and has served over 1500 ex-offenders–only 4 ex-offenders were returned to prison. During the 1960s, new prisoner re-entry programs were referred to as Federal Prerelease Guidance Centers, reintegrative programs (e.g. work-release and study-release centers), in-prison social education programs, and job information and placement labs at the federal and state level. Unfortunately, many of these programs lost funding and staff during the punitive era of the 1980s and 1990s. However, the re-emergence of comprehensive prisoner re-entry programs in recent years is extremely promising if the goal is to sharply reduce recidivism while rehabilitating and resocializing offenders.