NOTICES
DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS
Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Initiative Evidence-Based Program List
[38 Pa.B. 6291]
[Saturday, November 15, 2008]The Department of Corrections (Department), under the authority conferred by Act No. 81 of 2008 (act) (44 Pa.C.S. § 5304), publishes for public comment the following description of treatment and other programs it intends to designate as Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Programs. In addition to describing the various programs and the types of offenders who will be eligible to participate in the programs, the following information references the research reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of each program. A reference list containing detailed reference information for each publication appears at the conclusion of the material.
Public comments will be accepted for at least 60 days from the date of publication or until January 23, 2009, whichever is later. The information also is posted on the Department's web site at www.cor.state.pa.us. Public comments must be in writing and directed to Kathleen A. Gnall, Deputy Secretary for Reentry and Specialized Programs, Department of Corrections, P. O. Box 598, Camp Hill, PA 17001, (717) 975-4872.
The program plan for eligible offenders as defined in the act who have been sentenced to a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) minimum sentence may include one or more of the described programs as well as other programs intended to reduce the risk that the offender will commit additional crimes upon release and to be able to reenter society successfully. Assignment to specific programs is determined by the results of a battery of assessments provided to inmates upon intake, as well as by counselor review of the needs of individual inmates. The following provides a summary of these programs, as well as the research behind them.
Part A--Inmate Assessment Process
The assessment of an offender's risk of recidivating and needs for specific types of treatment programming is the cornerstone of effective correctional treatment practice (Andrews and Bonta, 2003). Before inmates are assigned to any treatment program, the Department administers a battery of assessment tools to them that provide information used to develop a specific treatment plan that is responsive to their criminogenic (crime-producing) needs. These assessments are conducted at intake at the Diagnostic and Classification Centers (DCC's) at the State Correctional Institutions (SCI's) at Camp Hill (for men) and Muncy (for women). The Principles of Effective Offender Intervention indicate that treatment should be directed to inmates who are likely to recidivate if not treated (high risk inmates) and should address verifiable criminogenic needs, such as antisocial attitudes, substance abuse, hostility and education deficits (Andrews and Bonta, 2003). For a summary of the Principles, see the following link on the Department's web site: www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/PrinciplesofEffective Intervention.pdf.
In line with the assessment principle, all inmates newly committed to the Department receive the following risk and needs assessments:
A1.) Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R)--This tool produces a score that estimates the risk that the inmate will reoffend. The LSI-R is perhaps the most widely used general purpose offender risk assessment tool in the world and has been validated on inmate populations in many jurisdictions (Andrews and Bonta, 2001). The Department has conducted several in-house validations of the LSI-R on our inmate population, and has also conducted validations with external research partners (see, for example, Kelly and Welsh, 2008). These validations have found that the LSI-R is predictive of recidivism for the Department inmate population, and thus is an acceptable measure of risk. As this program report is being prepared, the Department has developed a briefer risk assessment tool that can produce comparable predictive results with a shorter administrative timeframe and reduced cost. Validation and refinement of this new tool is ongoing.
A2.) Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M)--This tool provides information on an inmate's level of criminal attitudes, values and beliefs, which are key criminogenic needs. Like the LSI-R, the CSS-M is widely used in the U.S. and Canada. The CSS-M has been studied in a number of jurisdictions and has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of criminal thinking (see, for example, Simourd and Van De Ven, 1999). The Department has normed this tool on its inmate population.
A3.) Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ)--This tool provides information on an inmate's level of hostile thinking and tendency towards anger-driven responses in social situations. Like the LSI-R and CSS-M, the HIQ is used in other jurisdictions and is found to be a reliable and valid measure of hostile thinking (Simourd and Mamuza, 2000). The Department has normed this tool on its inmate population.
A4.) Texas Christian University Drug Screen II (TCUDSII)--This tool provides an assessment of an inmate's need for alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment programs. The TCUDSII was developed by researchers at TCU under several federal grants and is available free of charge to correctional agencies. This and other TCU tools are widely used by criminal justice agencies nationwide. The TCUDSII is validated against the diagnostic standards for substance abuse and dependence as codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--IV (DSM-IV), which is the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association. More information on the TCU family of AOD assessment tools can be found at: www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjforms.html.
A5.) Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Initial Assessment (PADOCIA)--This tool is based upon the Texas Christian University Initial Assessment tool, and was developed with the consultation of TCU researchers. The PADOCIA is administered to inmates who score in the higher ranges of the TCUDSII and provides additional clinical information useful in the treatment planning process.
A6.) Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)--This tool provides a measure of an inmate's level of educational functioning, producing a score equivalent to a grade level. The TABE is one of most widely used educational assessments for offenders and nonoffenders alike. Results from the TABE inform decisions about placement into the educational programs discussed.
A7.) Careerscope--This tool provides information about an inmate's vocational interests and aptitude, and informs decisions about placement into the Department's vocational programs discussed. Like the TABE, the Careerscope is one of the most widely used vocational assessments for offenders and nonoffenders.
A8.) Other--In addition to the instruments discussed previously, the Department uses a number of other general purpose psychological assessment tools, which provide additional information used to develop individual inmate treatment plans. These include the Personality Assessment Inventory and IQ testing.
The results of the risk and needs assessment process discussed previously are used to guide program placement decisions for individual inmates. The matrix found at the following link provides an overview of how assessment data is translated into program placement decisions: www.cor.state.pa.us/bis/lib/bis/Risk_and_Needs_Assess ment_Guidelines.pdf.
Part B--Programs Targeting Criminal Thinking and Behavior
The Department offers a number of standardized programs that address core criminogenic needs, including criminal thinking, hostility/anger and substance use. Consistent with the Principles of Effective Offender Intervention, our standardized programs, regardless of which specific criminogenic need targeted, employ a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approach. The CBT approach emphasizes the connection between thinking and behavior, recognizing that offenders behave like criminals because they think like criminals. Thus, the first step in changing behavior is changing dysfunctional thinking patterns. CBT approaches also address decision making, problem solving and coping skills, which have been identified as being important to the rehabilitative process (Andrews and Bonta, 2003). One advantage to CBT is that it is a fairly generic treatment tool; it can be incorporated into any number of needs-specific programs such as AOD treatment, anger/violence prevention and other specialized groups. There is a strong body of evidence that supports the use of CBT approaches to reduce recidivism. Meta-analyses conducted by Landenberger and Lipsey (2005), Pearson, et al (2002) and Wilson, et al (2005) have summarized the evidence in support of CBT approaches as a key component of an overall offender treatment strategy.1 These research reviews have found an average reduction in recidivism of approximately 20% for programs employing a CBT approach. Thus, the core Department programs are grounded in one of the most effective general treatment approaches available.
Program Listing
B1.) Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Treatment--The AOD programs are designed to provide a comprehensive continuum of services to inmates in all SCI's. These services include screening and assessment, outpatient services, inpatient services (Therapeutic Communities), aftercare and specialized Therapeutic Community programs for dually-diagnosed inmates. The AOD programs that are provided at SCI Muncy and SCI Cambridge Springs (our two female prisons) focus on gender-specific AOD issues. The Department has recently revised this program so that it is in conjunction with the Principles of Effective Offender Intervention.
B1a.) Therapeutic Community (TC)--A TC is an intensive treatment modality, which is self-contained and semi-autonomous with shared responsibilities by staff and inmates. This program is developed to treat inmates who meet the diagnostic criteria for AOD dependence (that is, the most serious level of addiction). TC participation provides an opportunity to focus on learning and behavior change on a 24 hour-a-day basis. In a TC, CBT concepts are not just taught in group sessions, but they are carried through in individual counseling sessions, in regular conversational contacts, in other group activities, in homework assignments, in learning experiences, and the like. Inmates are expected to demonstrate, in all daily activities, what they are learning in the program through observable attitude and behavior changes. There are 3 phases to the TC.
The TC curriculum provides the following lesson plans for Phase I participants: Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET)--four 1 1/2 hour sessions. CBT Addictions Concepts--eight 1 1/2 hour sessions, Criminal Thinking Overview--eight 1 1/2 hour sessions and Introduction to Self-Help--five 1 1/2 hour sessions. In Phase I, there are eight CBT sessions and eight sessions on Criminal Thinking Errors.
The TC curriculum provides the following lesson plans for Phase II participants: CBT Problem Solving Group--two 1 1/2 hour sessions per week in Phase 2 and CBT Skill Building Group--four 1 1/2 hour sessions per week in Phase 2. In Phase II, there are a total of 39 CBT sessions.
The purpose of TC Phase III is the transition and re-integration of the inmate into the community and/or general population, Phase III participants must attend CBT Aftercare Group (1 1/2 hours) once per week and they must attend Phase II group therapy with a Phase II member. This amounts to 6 additional CBT groups per week.
Therapy groups are to run on the CBT 30/30/30 model of providing 30 minutes of homework/journal review followed by 30 minutes of new topic presentation. The remaining 30 minutes is to be used for in class assignments, role plays and process sessions.
A TC is comparable to inpatient treatment in the community. The standard length of TC programming is 6 months. While participating in the TC, inmates cannot participate in other recommending programming until Phase III.
The TC Curriculum addresses thinking errors and therefore inmates in a TC do not need to also take Thinking for a Change (discussed as follows).
Inmates need to have a moderate to high LSI-R and a TCUDSII of 6-9 to participate in TC.
B1b.) Short Minimum TC--The Short Minimum Initiative is designed to program inmates identified as Short Min cases prior to their minimum dates. Short Min cases are defined as those with 12 months or less remaining on their sentences at the time of reception into the DCC's. This TC is condensed into 4 months. The curriculum is the same a 6 month TC. Inmates in the Short Min TC can also complete condensed versions of selected other programs in the TC environment.
Inmates need to have been identified as a Short Min initiative case by the DCC and have a moderate to high LSI-R and a TCUDSII of 3-9.
B1c.) Dual Diagnosis Therapeutic Community (DDTC)--An intensive treatment modality, which is self-contained and semi-autonomous with shared responsibilities by staff and inmates. This program is designed to treat inmates with co-occurring, mental health and AOD dependence/abuse disorders. It shares most of the features of the general TC discussed in 1a previously, but with the specialized focus on mental illness and addiction. The DDTC is available at SCI Retreat.
B1d.) Six Month Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP)--Six month IOP is offered at SCI-Chester and SCI-Pittsburgh. This IOP will be taken in place of the regular AOD Out-Patient Program. The 6 month IOP, like TC, replaces the need to take Thinking for a Change. IOP consists of three 90 minute sessions per week--two are content driven and one is a Thinking Error Skill Building session. There are a total of 72 Sessions. To be recommended for IOP an inmate must be housed at SCI-Chester or SCI-Pittsburgh and have a mod-high LSI-R and a TCU score of 3-5. Six month IOP completers will receive 3 months of community aftercare upon release. In a sense, IOP can be thought of as a less intensive version of a TC, but still representing a significant dose of treatment that incorporates many of the core features of TC.
B1e.) Short Minimum Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP)--Short Minimum IOP is offered at SCI-Chester and SCI-Pittsburgh. This IOP is 3 months. It consists of six 90 minute sessions per week--four are content driven and two are Thinking Error Skill Building sessions. There are a total of 72 Sessions. Inmates referred to this program must be housed at SCI-Chester and Pittsburgh and have a med-high LSI-R and a TCU score of 3-9. This program is designed for inmates identified by the DCC as short minimum cases. Short Minimum IOP completers will receive 3 months of Community Aftercare upon release. If Assessment scores warrant Thinking for a Change, the inmate must take Short Min IOP and Thinking for a Change. Like the 6 month IOP, the Short Min IOP can be thought of as a less intensive version of a TC, but still representing a significant dose of treatment that incorporates many of the core features of TC.
B1f.) Outpatient Treatment--Outpatient treatment is the provision of structured counseling or therapeutic services on a regular and predetermined basis. Services are generally provided weekly, in a group setting, using a module format. The inmate meets specific Department approved criteria for outpatient treatment based on a comprehensive screening and assessment described previously. Based on the initial and ongoing assessments, inmates may attend a combination of treatment modules.
Supporting Research for AOD Treatment
The Department has undertaken an extensive and long term evaluation of its AOD programs, in partnership with Dr. Wayne Welsh of Temple University, with funding by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and the National Institute of Justice. This partnership began in 1998 and is ongoing. This project has included a comprehensive process evaluation of the Department's system of AOD treatment, and a long term outcome evaluation of our TC's. The process evaluation was completed in 2000 and produced numerous recommendations for programmatic improvement, culminating in the evidence-based AOD treatment system currently in place within the Department (Welsh 2002, Welsh and Zajac, 2004a&b). The full process evaluation report is available on the Department's web site: www.cor.state. pa.us/stats/lib/stats/Temple_Process_Final_Report_to_ NIJ.pdf.
A summary of this report and discussion of how the Department utilized the findings is presented in the Department's in-house journal Research in Review, at the following link (Volume 6, Number 1): www.cor.state.pa.us/doc/lib/stats/RIR/Volume%206%20-%202003/RIRV6N1.pdf.
Looking at outcomes for AOD treatment, the Department's evaluation partnership with Temple University has to date documented a reduction in recidivism of 11 percentage points (or 27%) over a 2 year post release follow-up period (Welsh, 2003, 2007). The outcome phase of this study is ongoing, with a final report anticipated by the end of 2008. This report will show outcomes for a 5 to 7 year post release follow-up period, one of the longest follow-ups of any evaluation of prison-based AOD treatment. Preliminary indications from Dr. Welsh are that the earlier findings of a 27% reduction in recidivism are holding up even with the longer follow-up period. A summary of the findings to date is found in Research in Review at the following link (Volume 6, Number 4): www.cor.state.pa.us/doc/lib/stats/RIRV6N4.pdf.
Looking more broadly at research into the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment, we find substantial evidence of strong treatment effects, especially for intensive programs such as TC's. Recent meta-analyses of prison based AOD treatment evaluations conducted by Pearson and Lipton (1999) and Mitchell et al (2007) concluded that such treatment does reduce recidivism. There has been a great deal of research on prison-based TC's, with major evaluations in states such as California, Delaware and New York (in addition to our own evaluation in Pennsylvania). These studies have consistently documented strong treatment effects from TC's. This body of research is reviewed in the Department's in-house journal Research in Review in the following issues (Volume 3, Number 1 and Volume 7, Number 1): www.cor.state.pa.us/doc/lib/stats/RIR/Volume%203%20-%202000/RIRV3N1.pdf and www.cor.state.pa.us/doc/lib/stats/RIR/Volume%207 %20-%202004/RIRV7N1.pdf.
In sum, there is sufficient evidence, both in Pennsylvania and Nationally, to conclude that prison-based AOD treatment, and TC in particular, constitutes an evidence-based treatment that can reduce recidivism of addicted offenders.
B2.) Thinking for a Change--Thinking for a Change (T4C) is a 22 session general CBT program that utilizes cognitive restructuring and social skills interventions as methods of changing criminal thinking. This group targets inmates with poor decision making skills to work on cognitive self-change, social skills improvement and problem solving skills development. The program is broken down into sessions focusing on communication skills, thinking processes, emotional interpretations and problem solving. While all sessions utilize CBT techniques such as journaling and role playing, the thinking processes segments form the core of the CBT approaches offered by this program.
Inmates recommended for this program must have medium to high scores on the LSI-R and CSS-M, a demonstrated pattern of poor decision making, criminal thinking or an institutional pattern of behavior demonstrating these behaviors.
Programming can be conducted over a 3 to 6 month period.
T4C was developed by researchers under the auspices of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). As such, T4C is available free of charge to any corrections agency that wishes to use it. NIC will even provide training on T4C. T4C is widely used in corrections agencies across the nation. There are any number of generic CBT programs available to corrections agencies. Many are proprietary, thus involving a licensing cost to the agency. Research on CBT programs indicates that ''brand'' is less important than whether the program is actually following CBT principles (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005). Thus, there is an advantage to using a free CBT curriculum such as T4C.
Supporting Research for T4C
As noted previously, numerous studies have found that CBT programs are effective at reducing recidivism, and that ''brand'' may be relatively less important in determining outcomes. A evaluation of T4C by Golden et al (2006), however, found that T4C reduced recidivism by 33% compared to offenders not receiving the program. The findings noted previously about the irrelevance of ''brand'' notwithstanding, the Department has been conducting a cross evaluation of T4C against two other CBT curricula. One important aspect of this evaluation is the examination of how participants change on their CSS-M scores before and after treatment. Changes on such scores are indicative of attitudinal shifts that translate into recidivism reduction. Results to date indicate that T4C is somewhat outperforming the other two programs being evaluated. We are presently examining recidivism outcomes for these programs. A summary of these evaluation findings to date is available in the latest issue of the Department's in-house journal Research in Review (Volume 11, Number 3): www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/RIRV11N3.pdf.
B3.) Violence Prevention--Violence Prevention is a 25 session program that also utilizes a CBT approach including Cognitive Behavioral Restructuring and Social Interventions as methods to provide inmates with appropriate alternatives for dealing with their aggressive behavior and their feelings of anger and frustration. It also addresses errors in thinking that involve criminal mentality. The main foci of this program are educational aspects to understand the roots of anger and aggression as well as coping mechanisms for the behaviors associated with anger and aggression. This is achieved through the use of modeling, role playing and journaling as well as in-cell assignments. While enhancing coping skills are a primary purpose of this program, secondary goals help reinforce the inmate's ability to employ these skills.
Inmates recommended for this program must have moderate to high scores on the LSI-R and HIQ, a history of violence towards people/property, current violent offense, pattern of institutional violence/aggression and be psychiatrically stable.
This program can be conducted over a 3 to 6 month period.
Supporting Research for Violence Prevention
The Department has recently conducted a Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) on the Violence Prevention program, in partnership with Dr. Edward Latessa at the University of Cincinnati, with funding from the National Institute of Corrections. The CPAI is a tool that benchmarks a given program against the Principles of Effective Offender Intervention. Programs that more closely adhere to these principles will be more likely to reduce recidivism. This evaluation concluded that the Violence Prevention program is an evidence-based program that incorporates CBT principles within a structured treatment approach (Latessa and Carter, 2005). One recommendation of this study was that the Violence Prevention program has now been in operation long enough to sustain an outcome evaluation.2 The Department is presently planning such an evaluation.
B4.) Community Orientation Reintegration Program--COR is a reentry preparation program that addresses general reentry needs, such as job search, money management and other basic life skills. While such issues may seem mundane, they can be a challenge to someone who has been incarcerated for a period of years. COR is a 4 week program that is delivered in the months immediately prior to an inmate's release. Weeks one and two provide 30 hours of programming on employability, such as job search, interviewing techniques and how to succeed on the job. Week three provides 15 hours of programming on life skills and related issues such as housing. Week four provides eight hours of programming on money management skills, which has been found to be a key problem area for parole violators (Bucklen, et al, 2004). To complete COR, follow-up services are provided by parole agents on the street depending upon the needs of the individual inmate.
Supporting Research for COR
COR was implemented during 2002. The Department conducted a formative process evaluation of COR at that time, in partnership with researchers at the Urban Institute. Their report informed early refinements to COR (La Vigne and Lawrence, 2002). This report is available on the Department's web site at: www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/Urban_Institute_-_COR_Process_Evaluation _Consolidated_Report.pdf.
More recently, the Department partnered with Dr. Linda Smith of the International Association of Reentry to conduct an outcome evaluation of COR, with funding from PCCD. This study used random assignment to treatment and control conditions and followed inmates for approximately 5 years post release. The results from this evaluation were mixed, concluding that overall, COR had little impact upon recidivism (Smith and Suttle, 2008).
There is a consensus that correctional agencies should provide some sort of structured reentry program to soon-to-be-released inmates, although in another sense all prison programming can be viewed as preparation for reentry (Petersilia, 2003). Accordingly, the Department has revised COR using the findings from the recent outcome evaluation to bring it more in line with the Principles of Effective Offender Intervention. The new COR is presently being pilot tested and re-evaluated, and will be rolled out system-wide in early 2009.
Future Research into Core Department's Programs
The Department is presently working with Drs. Edward Latessa, Christopher Lowenkamp and colleagues at the University of Cincinnati to conduct a basic process evaluation of many core treatment programs at all SCI's, with funding from PCCD. This study is utilizing the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) to assess these programs. The CPC is a descendent tool of the aforementioned CPAI, and benchmarks programs against the Principles of Effective Offender Intervention. When completed in late 2009, this project will provide valuable insight into the implementation of our evidence-based programs and will allow for additional program refinement.
Part C--Programs Targeting Educational and Vocational Needs
The Department offers a wide variety of programs that address educational and vocational training deficits of inmates. Low levels of educational and vocational achievement are found to correlate with recidivism, thus, it is valuable to address these needs.
Program Listing C1.) Adult Basic Education (ABE)--Designed for adults functioning in the lower levels of achievement roughly equivalent to grade levels K--8.
C2.) Secondary Education (GED)--Includes instruction at grade levels 9--12 in reading, writing/language, math, science and social studies, focusing on the successful completion of the General Educational Development Test (GED Test). All new inmates are mandated to work toward earning a GED.
C3.) GED Test--Administered on-site at each SCI, an established GED Testing Center. Our academic programs contain basic and advanced skills necessary to pass the GED Test.
C4.) Commonwealth Secondary Diploma Program--Offered at designated SCI's for under 21 year olds by a certified teaching staff in accordance with Act 15 and Act 35.
C5.) Post Secondary Education--Offers certificate programs from accredited institutions in business management, introduction to computers, fiber optics and telecommunications to name a few. The Youthful Offenders program is a significant part of post secondary education with a Federal grant subsidizing costs.
C6.) Vocational Education/Training--Provides entry-level skills in 26 vocational areas. Every effort is made to identify a trade-based competency certification or assessment closely aligned with each vocational program. Currently the Department offers credentials/assessments in over 75% of its vocational programs. See attached Excel spreadsheet for a detailed listing of vocational programs by SCI. This spreadsheet also lists industry certifications associated with successful program completion, where applicable.
Supporting Research for Educational/Vocational Programming
The Department has conducted a formal process and outcome evaluation of its educational and vocational program offerings. This study is being conducted in partnership with Dr. Linda Smith of the International Association on Reentry, with funding by PCCD. This project began in 2001, and is scheduled to be completed in early 2009. This study involved a comprehensive evaluation of the entire Department's education and vocational program system. The process evaluation phase of this study was completed in 2003 and produced numerous recommendations for programmatic improvement.
The following link is to the completed process evaluation report on the Department's web site: www.cor. state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/EducationProcessEvaluation FinalReport.pdf.
The following link is to the Department's in-house journal Research in Review that provides a summary of this study as well as programmatic changes made in response to the study (Volume 6, Number 4): www.cor.state.pa.us/doc/lib/stats/RIRV6N4.pdf.
The outcome evaluation phase of this study is still underway, and will be completed in early 2009. This study will show the impact of the Department's education and vocational programs on recidivism, employment and other indicators. Preliminary findings to date, however, do indicate that these programs are having a positive impact on recidivism. For example, participation in educational and vocational programs reduced re-arrest rates by nearly 6 percentage points (or 20%) over a 1 to 2 years post-release follow-up period. The effects were most pronounced for inmates who participated in multiple education and vocational programs, thus pointing to a program ''stacking'' effect. Program participants also worked for a longer time after release from prison than did inmates in the comparison group who did not receive these programs. The final outcome evaluation report will follow study participants for 3 to 5 years post release, tracking recidivism and other outcomes.
Looking more broadly at education and vocational programs in prison, there is a growing body of evidence that such programs are effective at reducing recidivism. Prior to conducting her evaluation in Pennsylvania, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a similar study in Maryland, Minnesota and Ohio (the ''Three State Study''). This study found that such programs reduced recidivism by as much as 10 percentage points over a 3 year post release follow-up period. Program participants in this study also had higher wages post release than did inmates in the comparison group (Steurer, et al, 2001).
Other National research has shown positive impacts for education and vocational programs. A recent meta-analysis of evaluations of such programs conducted nationwide concluded that there is sufficient evidence to place these programs into the ''what works'' category of offender programming (Jensen and Reed, 2006). This echoes an earlier meta-analysis of over 30 evaluations which found that participants in education programs were 1.44 times less likely to recidivate than inmates in a comparison group, and 1.7 times more likely to be employed after release (Wilson, et al, 2000).
Thus, from research conducted within the Department's and based upon reviews of national research on corrections education and vocational programs, we have a reasonable basis to conclude that such programs are evidence based and do contribute to an overall recidivism risk reduction treatment plan.
References Andrews, D.A. and James Bonta. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, Don A. and James L. Bonta. 2001. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised: User's Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bucklen, Kristofer Bret, Gary Zajac and Kathleen Gnall. 2004. ''Understanding and Responding to the Needs of Parole Violators.'' Corrections Today, 66(2), 84-87.
Golden, Lori Suzanne, Robert J. Gatchel and Melissa Anne Cahill. 2006. ''Evaluating the Effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections' 'Thinking for a Change' Program Among Probationers.'' Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(2), 55-73.
Jensen, Eric L and Gary E. Reed. 2006. ''Adult Correctional Education Programs: An Update on Current Status Based on Recent Studies.'' Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44(1), 81-98.
Kelly, Christopher E. and Wayne N. Welsh. 2008. ''The Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised for Drug-Involved Offenders.'' Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(7), 819-831.
Landenberger, Nana A. and Mark W. Lipsey. 2005. ''The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment.'' Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451-476.
Latessa, Edward J. and David Carter. 2005. Correctional Program Assessment Inventory: Conducted on the Violence Prevention Treatment Program at State Correctional Facility at Camp Hill. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Process Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Community Orientation and Reintegration (COR) Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Mitchell, Ojmarrh, David B. Wilson and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2007. ''Does Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment Reduce Recidivism? A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Research.'' Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(4), 353-375.
Pearson, Frank S., Douglas S. Lipton, Charles M. Cleland and Dorline S. Yee. 2002. ''The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral Programs on Recidivism.'' Crime & Delinquency, 48(3), 476-496.
Pearson, Frank S. and Douglas S. Lipton. 1999. ''A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse.'' The Prison Journal, 79(4), 384-410.
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Simourd, David J. and Joelle M. Mamuza. 2000. ''The Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Construct Validity'' Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(5), 645-663.
Simourd, David J. and Jennifer Van De Ven. 1999. ''Assessment of Criminal Attitudes: Criterion-Related Validity of the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale.'' Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 90-106.
Smith, Linda and Denise R. Suttle. 2008. An Outcome Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Community Orientation and Reintegration Program. Columbus, OH: International Association of Reentry.
Steurer, Stephen J., Linda Smith and Alice Tracy. 2001. Three State Recidivism Study. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.
Welsh, Wayne N. 2007. ''A Multisite Evaluation of Prison-Based Therapeutic Community Drug Treatment.'' Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1481-1498.
Welsh, Wayne N. 2003. Evaluation of Prison-Based Therapeutic Community Drug Treatment Programs in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Temple University. Report to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
Welsh, Wayne N. 2002. Evaluation of Prison Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania: A Research Collaboration Between the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Center for Public Policy at Temple University. Philadelphia: Temple University. Report to the National Institute of Justice.
Welsh, Wayne N. and Gary Zajac. 2004a. ''Building an Effective Research Partnership Between a University and a State Correctional Agency: Assessment of Drug Treatment In Pennsylvania Prisons.'' The Prison Journal, 84(2), 143-170.
Welsh, Wayne N. and Gary Zajac. 2004b. ''A Census of Prison-Based Drug Treatment Programs: Implications for Programming, Policy and Evaluation.'' Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 108-133.
Wilson, David B., Leana Allen Bouffard and Doris L. Mackenzie. 2005. ''A Quantitative Review of Structured, Group-Oriented, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders.'' Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 172-204.
Wilson, David B., Catherine A. Gallagher and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2000. ''A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.'' Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347-368.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D.,
Secretary
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 08-2065. Filed for public inspection November 14, 2008, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 Meta-analysis is a formal, rigorous synthesis of evaluation or other studies on a given topic. More than a simple research review, meta-analysis produces an evaluation of the evaluations and generates conclusions about overall treatment effects.
2 Many evaluators agree that outcome evaluation is more meaningful once a program has had the opportunity work out initial implementation difficulties and become fully operational. This can take several years, depending upon the program.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
