Final Report

FINAL REPORT

Evaluation of Selected Institutional Offender Treatment Programs for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Edward J. Latessa, PhD Principal Investigator

Paula Smith, PhD Co-Principal Investigator

Myrinda Schweitzer, MA Project Director

Lori Lovins, MSW Research Associate

University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice Center for Criminal Justice Research PO Box 210389 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0389

Final Report Issued: November 2009 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank everyone involved in this project for their time and effort. In particular, we would like to thank the following:

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Gary Zajac, Ph.D.

Michael Antonio, Ph.D.

Jacqueline Young, MA

We would also like to thank staff members and program directors at the following State Correctional Institutions:

Albion Houtzdale Cambridge Springs Huntingdon Camp Hill Laurel Highlands Coal Township Mahanoy Cresson Mercer Dallas Muncy Fayette Pine Grove Forest Retreat Frackville Rockview Graterford Smithfield Greensburg Somerset Greene Waymart

Additional thanks to all staff who took the time to complete the staff survey.

University of Cincinnati We would also like to thank several research associates from the CCJR who conducted site visits and assisted with the preparation of the report: Shelley Listwan, Beth Ellefson, Kevan Galyean, Brian Lovins, Matt Makarios, Jessica Marsh, Andrew Myer, Megan Novinski, Kristin Ostrowski, Rebecca Schnupp, and Cara Thompson.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 2

Introduction 6

Principles of Effective Intervention 7

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 9

Description of Programming and Services 9

Thinking for a Change Program 9

Batterer’s Intervention Program 9

Violence Prevention Programs 10

Sex Offender Program 10

Outpatient 10

Therapeutic Community 10

Delivery of Treatment Services 10

Description of PA DOC Assessment Process 12

Methods 15

Table 1: Total Number of Institutions and Programs Evaluated 16

Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist Assessment (CPC) and Description of the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist-Group Assessment (CPC-GA) Description 16

Data Collection 19

Results 19

Table 2: PADOC CPC-GA and CPC Program Evaluation Results. 22

Figure 1:CPC-GA Scores by State Correctional Institution 23

Figure 2:CPC-GA Scores for Thinking for a Change by SCI 24

Figure 3: CPC-GA Scores for Batterer’s Intervention by SCI 25

Figure 4:CPC-GA Scores for Violence Prevention by SCI 26

Figure 5:CPC and CPC-GA Scores for Sex Offender Program by SCI 27

Overall CPC-GA& CPC strengths and areas for improvement for PADOC, Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention, and Sex Offender Programs (Outpatient and Therapeutic Communities) 28

Staff Surveys 40

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of the Staff Survey 41

Table 4: Survey Results on Support for Treatment 42

Table 5: Survey Results on Environmental Factors of Programming 43

Table 6: Survey Results on Benefits of Programming and Behavior Management 44

Table 7: Respondent Rated Value of Programming by type of Program 46

Conclusions and Recommendations 47

Figure 6: PADOC CPC-GA Domain Scores 48

Strengths 49

Areas for Improvement with Recommendations 51

Appendix A Selected Bibliography 60

Appendix B 79 Staff Survey

Appendix C 87 Program Evaluation and Staff Survey Results by Institution

Albion, Figure 7 87 Cambridge Springs, Figure 8 97 Camp Hill, Figure 9 105 Coal Township, Figure 10 115 Cresson, Figure 11 125 Dallas, Figure 12 137

Fayette, Figure 13 147 Forest, Figure 14 157 Frackville, Figure 15 166 Graterford, Figure 16 174 Greene, Figure 17 184 Greensburg, Figure 18 194 Houtzdale, Figure 19 204 Huntingdon, Figure 20 214 Laurel Highlands, Figure 21 224 Mahanoy, Figure 22 234 Mercer, Figure 23 244 Muncy, Figure 24 254 Pine Grove, Figure 25 262 Retreat, Figure 26 272 Rockview, Figure 27 282 Smithfield, Figure 28 292 Somerset, Figure 29 302 Waymart, Figure 30 312

INTRODUCTION In general, correctional treatment programs have been associated with a reduction in

recidivism (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, & Andrews, 2004). However, there is a great deal of variation among programs with respect to the degree of effectiveness. Correctional programs that adhere to certain principles are more successful at reducing offender recidivism, thereby increasing community safety (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). These principles of effective intervention, commonly referred to as the “what works” literature, are key in guiding correctional practices. Cullen and Gendreau (2000) reported that there is a 40 percent difference in recidivism rates between programs that adhere to “what works” principles and programs that do not. Specifically, programs that implement the “what works” literature have effect sizes up to

40 percent (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000).

In an effort to assess how well the principles of effective intervention are being implemented across state correctional institutions, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

(PADOC) contracted with the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research to conduct a system-wide process evaluation of five treatment programs offered throughout the

PADOC. Specifically, this evaluation was intended to identify system-wide strengths and areas for improvement within the Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention, and Sex Offender outpatient and therapeutic community programs. This assessment was intended to identify the effectiveness of each program at providing evidence-based services. Therefore, this report begins with a brief review of the principles of effective intervention in order to provide some context and background. The findings of the assessments conducted on all of the aforementioned programs are then detailed, with a focus on identifying common strengths and areas that need improvement across all programs as well as systemic issues. Finally,

6 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of services for offenders involved in the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a whole are provided.

PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION While some previous narrative reviews of correctional interventions have concluded that

“nothing works” in offender rehabilitation (Martinson, 1974), more recent meta-analytic reviews have determined that many interventions are indeed successful at reducing recidivism. Andrews et al., 1990, found an overall effect size of .10 for treatment programs, but an effect size up to .30 for programs classified as “appropriate” based on certain principles. Subsequent reviews also found average reductions of 25 percent or more if certain conditions are met (Gendreau &

Goggin, 1996; Smith, Gendreau, & Goggin, 2005; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006).

Specifically, programs that adhere to the principles of effective intervention can produce sizeable reductions in recidivism (Gendreau, 1996). There are over 45 meta-analysis completed in the correctional area replicating these results with remarkable consistency (Smith, Gendreau and

Schwartz, 2009)

Given the relationship between program characteristics and rates of recidivism, it is important to briefly review seven principles of effective intervention as delineated by Gendreau

(1996) and further articulated by others (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006 for a review). The following offers a brief description of each principle:

1. Programs should be intensive and behavioral in nature. The most effective programs last between three and nine months and occupy at least 40 percent of the offenders’ time with behavioral interventions (Gendreau, 1996). With regard to program length, diminishing returns is often realized after 12 months of treatment (excluding aftercare). One notable exception involves sex offenders. In addition to the length and intensity of services, the type of treatment services must also be considered. It is also important that interventions are based on a cognitive-behavioral model. In part, this requires that programs incorporate a cognitive restructuring component and regular skill building via staff modeling of prosocial behavior and offender practice of such skills via role playing. 7

2. Programs should target known predictors of crime. The most effective programs target the dynamic risk factors (i.e. criminogenic needs) of higher risk offenders (Gendreau, 1996). In addition to substance abuse, other dynamic risk factors include antisocial attitudes, antisocial peer associations, antisocial personality, family factors, and educational and vocational achievement (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Simourd & Andrews, 1994).

3. Behavioral programs should use standardized assessments to identify the risk level, need level, and responsivity factors of offenders. Research has also found that the most effective programs target higher risk offenders; that is, they match the level of service to the level of risk (Gendreau, 1996). Targeting lower risk individuals with higher need services may actually result in increasing recidivism rates among participants (see Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). Programs must use standardized assessments that define levels of risk and need in order to properly match offenders to the correct services. Furthermore, such assessments should identify the primary target areas when working with offenders.

4. Programs should match the characteristics of the offenders, therapists, and programs. In addition to matching level of service to level of risk, it is also important for correctional interventions to match the characteristics of offenders to therapists and programs (Gendreau, 1996). This principle suggests that individuals will respond to treatment differently depending on a number of factors including motivation, IQ, personality, and cognitive ability. Programs which assess and address these considerations are more likely to be effective than programs which fail to identify and acknowledge responsivity factors.

5. Program contingencies and behavioral strategies should be enforced in a firm but fair manner. An integral part of any effective program is the use of reinforcers to shape behavior. As noted by Gendreau (1996), reinforcers should be contingent on prosocial behaviors and should exceed punishers by a ratio of 4:1. It is also important for programs to monitor behaviors through the use of drug testing and other collateral sources in an effort to detect antisocial activities (Gendreau, 1996).

6. Programs should have well-qualified and well-trained staff who can relate to the offenders. The most effective interventions have competent staff members (Gendreau, 1996). Staff should possess characteristics related to effective counseling such as “clarity in communication, warmth, humor, openness, and the ability to relate to behavior and set appropriate limits” (Gendreau, 1996, p. 124). It is also important for staff to be educated and to receive adequate training and supervision (Gendreau, 1996).

7. Programs should provide relapse prevention strategies. The most effective programs incorporate relapse prevention strategies. That is, effective programs train participants to monitor and recognize high risk situations and to practice prosocial, alternative behaviors (Gendreau, 1996).

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Description What is known today as the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections began as a single penitentiary in 1829. With the addition of other penitentiaries the Bureau of Correction was created in 1953. In 1984, the Bureau of Correction was elevated to cabinet-level status within the

Office of General Counsel to the Governor, thus becoming the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections currently oversees 26 state correctional institutions and supervises more than 51,000 offenders.

Description of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Programming

As previously mentioned, several programs operating within the state correctional institutions were assessed as part of the system-wide evaluation process. The programs include

Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention, and Sex Offender outpatient and therapeutic community programs. Summaries for each of the program types are provided below.1

Thinking for a Change: Thinking for a Change was developed by: Jack Bush Ph.D., Barry Glick, Ph.D., and Juliana Taymans, Ph.D. along with the National Institute of Corrections. It is a problem-solving program that incorporates both cognitive restructuring and social skills training. There are twenty-two lessons that integrate both the cognitive skills and cognitive restructuring components with an emphasis on identifying thinking, beliefs, attitudes, and values that influence behavior. Batterer’s Intervention: This program uses the curriculum Power and Control: Tactics of Men who Batter by Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar. This curriculum was revised in

1 These summaries were adapted from the Pennsylvania DOC’s Program Descriptions 9

1993 and put into book form, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. The manual provides facilitators with an educational framework to challenge the beliefs and behavior of men who batter women. Specifically, the facilitators are to use the lesson plans, exercises, and handouts to create an opportunity for the men to think critically and reflectively about their use of violence, women, men, and relationships. Violence Prevention: This program was developed by a committee headed up by Roxanna Dinesen, then Chief of Treatment Programs; Sara Crawford, Psychological Services Specialist; Barbara Hollibaugh, Correction Counselor II; and Elizabeth Eppley, Management Technician. The Violence Prevention Treatment Program is a program designed to offer education and practical applications regarding anger management, aggression, coping mechanisms, and relapse prevention. The program is designed to be a twenty-six week course that meets weekly for two hours. Sex Offender: Outpatient and Therapeutic Community (TC): Both the outpatient and therapeutic communities use the Medlin Responsible Living curriculum for treatment groups. While the full sex offender treatment program from Medlin uses seven phases, not all phases are used or completed in their entirety for the outpatient and TC programming. Additionally, the Medlin program uses both individual and group treatment; however, PADOC only incorporates the group treatment portion into their programming. The low risk group is required to complete three of the Medlin phases; Phase 1: Responsibility Taking, Phase 2: Behavioral Techniques, and Phase 7: Relapse Prevention. Phase 1 provides an overview of the treatment program, indentifies common thinking errors, introduces the offense cycle and “red flags”, and requires each participant to accept full responsibility for their offense through completion of an offense summary. Phase 2 focuses more on recognizing and addressing high risk thoughts, feelings, and behaviors2. Behavioral techniques such as thought-stopping, imagery and relaxation are also taught. Finally, Phase 7 focuses entirely on developing risk plans and relapse prevention techniques. The moderate/high risk group moves through all seven phases of the Medlin curriculum including those listed above plus phases 3-6.Phase 3: Emotional Well-Being aims to help the clients explore unresolved issues from their past. The purpose of Phase 4: Victim Empathy is to teach the clients how to develop and use empathy, while Phase 5 helps the offenders become aware of their triggers for anger, their expression of anger, and effective ways to manage anger. Lastly, Phase 6: Sex Education has three purposes. The first is to expand the participants’ knowledge about healthy sexuality, the second is to dispel myths regarding sex, and the third is to discuss sex in an open setting. Delivery of Treatment Services: Delivery of Treatment Services is separated among psychology staff and correctional counselors. In 2008, the PADOC created a new treatment

2 Programs reported using Phase 6: Sex Education instead of Phase 2: Behavioral Techniques for low risk SOP group. 10

position, Treatment Specialist, specifically for the facilitation of groups. The treatment specialist

is a subcategory of the Correctional Counselor II position and their primary duty is to facilitate

Thinking for a Change, Violence Prevention, and Batterer’s Intervention programs. The treatment specialist position was created to allow staff to focus exclusively on delivering groups, while reducing their case management responsibilities.

While the treatment specialist coordinators supervise some treatment specialists, unit managers supervise others. In the case where the unit manager supervises the treatment specialists this assignment is based on their block assignment. Despite the transition to the

treatment specialist position some institutions still use correctional counselors to facilitate the

three aforementioned programs. Institutions reported that this is necessary to manage the recent

increase in referrals for Violence Prevention programming. The increase in referrals to the

Violence Prevention program is a result of the parole moratorium3.Additionally, some

institutions just began to implement the treatment specialist position within the last year, and thus were still transitioning out the other correctional counselors.

The licensed psychology manager of the institution manages the outpatient sex offender programming and the psychology staff specialists, who are responsible for facilitating the outpatient sex offender groups. Within the sex offender therapeutic communities (TC), various staff members participate in programming. The psychology staff specialists facilitated the majority of the treatment groups; however, correctional counselors assigned to the TC sometimes participated in the facilitation of group as well. Finally, within two TCs, inmates also facilitated treatment related groups on the unit.

3 Governor Rendell called for the parole moratorium and parole review by Dr. Goldkamp after the shooting death of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Patrick McDonald by a paroled violent offender. All violent offenders are not to be paroled under the moratorium. 11

Description of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Assessment Process

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections utilizes a centralized assessment and

planning process. This process occurs at two state correctional institutions within the Department of Corrections. Specifically, SCI Camp Hill Diagnostic and Classification Center (CDCC) and

SCI Muncy Diagnostic and Classification Center (MDCC) are responsible for the majority of the assessments and correctional planning for the inmates. CDCC handles the male intakes while

MDCC is responsible for the assessment and planning for each female intake. The PADOC uses a comprehensive assessment process and matrix to determine appropriate program placement.

In November 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections initiated a number of

changes to their assessment and correctional planning procedures. The most significant change

resulted from a review of how well the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) predicted recidivism for the PADOC population of inmates. The LSI-R (Andrews and Bonta, 1995) is a third generation risk and needs assessment tool that can identify overall risk level but also be used for treatment recommendations regarding criminogenic needs. The LSI-R was validated on a sample of PADOC offenders in 2006 by Dr. David Simourd, and was found to be predictive for

PADOC’s population of inmates. The DOC had been using the LSI-R to drive correctional plans until March 2009 when it was replaced by the Risk Screen Tool (RST), which was developed specifically for PADOC and also found to be predictive for inmates of PADOC. The RST is an seven-item measure used to screen each inmate to determine whether the inmate is in need of a full battery of assessments as well as correctional programming. While the RST now drives treatment recommendations, the LSI-R is still to be administered by the parole board when the inmate comes up for parole consideration.

The RST is comprised of seven, mostly static items that measure criminal history, institutional misconduct, demographics, and employment. Specifically, the RST asks age at first arrest, current age, number of prior adult convictions, ever sanctioned for an institutional behavior problem, ever violated a period of court ordered supervision in the community, education level, and whether the inmate has an alcohol/drug problem. There are four override questions to consider: measuring history of domestic violence, driving under the influence, whether the current offense is a sexual offense, and a history of violent behavior. The individual item scores are added together to determine the overall final score and risk level. Low risk is zero to four points, medium risk is five to six points, and high risk is seven to nine points. Individuals who score as medium to high risk (score of 5 or more) on the RST are then required to undergo a full assessment battery. If any one of the override considerations is marked as a yes, then a full assessment battery is also required.

A full battery of assessments are administrated at the classification centers and include

Criminal Sentiments Scale- Modified (CSS-M), the Hostile Interpretation Questionnaire (HIQ), the Texas Christian University Drug Screen II accompanied by a clinical Alcohol and Other

Drug Abuse initial assessment, and a range of responsivity assessments. The responsivity assessments can include the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE), the Wide Range

Achievement Test (WRAT), the Revised Beta Examination, 2nd Edition, the Personality

Assessment Inventory (PAI) and a series of vocational tests. Furthermore, in March 2009 the

PADOC also implemented a process to administer the Offender Violence Risk Typology

(OVRT) to all inmates admitted to the DOC. The OVRT is a tool that was created following Dr.

John Goldkamp’s review of the Pennsylvania’s Corrections and Parole policies and practices related to violent offenders.

The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) is a self-report instrument that measures antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs directly related to criminal activity. The Hostile

Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ) is also a self-report tool that measures an individual’s hostility. Dr. David Simourd validated the CSS-M and HIQ on a sample of PADOC offenders in

2006. The OVRT is completed by staff with information collected through inmate interview and collateral information such as criminal record. According to the PADOC assessment and treatment matrix, the CSS-M aides staff in the decision to refer an inmate to Thinking for a

Change, while the HIQ and OVRT help guide referrals to Violence Prevention. The OVRT is also used as a decision guide to influence conditions of release. Finally, the HIQ is also considered in the decision to refer to Batterer’s Intervention programming.

The results of the CSS-M, HIQ, OVRT and RST are used together to develop the correctional plan in adherence with the “Assessment Guidelines for Correctional Planning”. The document is an assessment/program matrix that guides the CDCC and MDCC staff when developing the correctional plan to ensure that each inmate is referred to programming based upon assessment scores.

The exception to this process is the sex offense specific assessments. Sex offenders who are serving over twelve months will complete an additional sex offender specific risk assessment, the Static-99, upon arrival at their respective institution. The Static-99 classifies an individual as low, moderate, or high risk to re-offend sexually, and is used to determine the appropriate level of sex offender programming required. These assessments are conducted by the psychology staff at each institution and the correctional plan is then updated with the referral information.

METHODS As noted previously, the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research was asked to evaluate the program integrity of five PADOC treatment programs. Specifically, these programs were assessed to identify the effectiveness of each at providing evidence-based services. In order to measure program integrity, the Evidence-Based Correctional Program

Checklist (CPC) and the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist-Group Assessment

(CPC-GA) 4were used. Of the two structured program evaluations, the latter was mainly used.

The CPC-GA is a modified version of the Correctional Program Checklist, developed specifically for this project. The CPC and the CPC–GA provide a standardized, objective way of assessing the quality of correctional programming against empirically based standards. The CPC and CPC-GA are designed to measure how closely programs meet the known principles of effective intervention, reviewed previously.

The University of Cincinnati was awarded a grant by the Pennsylvania Commission on

Crime and Delinquency to evaluate twenty-four state correctional institutions for the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Specifically, UC was asked to assess the Thinking for

a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention and sex offense specific programs; however not all programs were offered at each institution. As can be seen from Table 1, ninety-

five total programs were evaluated. Specifically, the CPC-GA was used to assess twenty-four

Thinking for a Change, twenty-two Batterer’s Intervention, and twenty-four Violence Prevention programs. Additionally, the CPC-GA was used to assess twenty-one outpatient sex offender programs. The CPC-GA was selected for these programs because it assesses stand alone groups

4 The CPC-GA was created by University of Cincinnati and is a modified version of the CPC which is modeled after the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory developed by Gendreau and Andrews (1996); however, the CPC- GA includes some items not contained in the CPAI. In addition, individual items were deleted that were not found to be positively correlated with recidivism. 15

offered to offenders such as those just noted. The CPC, on the other hand was used to assess

fours offender Therapeutic Communities. The following section defines more explicitly the

differences between the two evaluation tools.

Table 1: Total Number of PADOC Institutions and Programs Evaluated

Sample N

Institutions 24

Programs 95

Thinking for a Change 24

Batterer’s Intervention 22

Violence Prevention 24

Sex Offender 25

Sex Offender Outpatient 21

Sex Offender Therapeutic Community 4

Description of the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) and Evidence- Based Correctional Program Checklist-Group Assessment (CPC-GA) The CPC and CPC-GA are tools developed by the University of Cincinnati to assess

correctional programs and treatment groups, and are used to ascertain how closely these

interventions adhere to the principles of effective intervention. Several recent studies conducted

by the University of Cincinnati on both adult and juvenile samples were used to develop and

validate the indicators included on the CPC.5 These studies yielded strong correlations with

5 These studies involved over 40,000 offenders (both adult and juvenile), and over 400 correctional programs, ranging from institutional to community-based. All of the studies are available on our website (www.uc.edu/criminaljustice). A large part of this research involved the identification of program characteristics that were correlated with outcome.

16 outcome between individual items, domain scores, as well as overall scores (Holsinger, 1999;

Lowenkamp, 2003; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2003; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005a; Lowenkamp

& Latessa, 2005b).

The CPC is divided into two basic areas: (1) Capacity and (2) Content. The capacity area is designed to measure whether or not a correctional program has the capability to deliver evidence-based interventions and services for offenders. There are three sub-components in this area: (1) Leadership and Development, (2) Staff Characteristics, and (3) Quality Assurance. On the other hand, the content area focuses on the substantive domains of Offender Assessment and

Treatment. The CPC includes a total of 77 items and 83 points as some items are weighted.

Both areas and all domains are scored and rated as either Highly Effective (65% to 100%);

Effective (55% to 64%); Needs Improvement (46% to 54%); or Ineffective (45% or less).

The CPC-GA is divided into the same two basic areas as the CPC. For the CPC-GA there are two domains in the capacity area: 1) Program Staff and Support and 2) Quality Assurance.

The content area focuses on the substantive aspect of the group and also includes two areas: 1)

Offender Assessment and 2) Treatment. The treatment area is designed to measure core correctional practices and is divided into seven components; 1) Group Target and Process, 2)

Effective Reinforcement, 3) Effective Disapproval, 4) Structured Skill Building, 5) Relationship

Skills, 6) Cognitive Restructuring, and 7) Relapse Prevention. The content area focuses on the extent to which the groups meet the principles of risk, need, responsivity and treatment. The

CPC-GA tool includes 54 indicators, worth 56 total points. Each area and all domains are scored and rated as either "Highly Effective" (65% to 100%); "Effective" (55% to 64%); "Needs

Improvement" (45% to 54%); or "Ineffective" (less than 45%). The scores in all domains are

then totaled and the same scale is used for the overall assessment score. It should be noted that

not all of the domains are given equal weight, and some items may be considered Not Applicable

in which case they are not included in the scoring.

There are several limitations to the CPC and CPC-GA that should be discussed. First, the instruments are based on an “ideal” type. The criteria have been developed from a large body of research and knowledge that combines the best practices from the empirical literature on “what works” in reducing recidivism. Second, as with all applied research, objectivity and reliability are important considerations. Although steps are taken to ensure that the information that is gathered is accurate and reliable, decisions about the information and data gathered are invariably made by the assessor given the nature of the process. Third, the process is time- specific; that is, the results describe the program at the time of the assessment. Changes or modifications may be under development, but only those activities and processes that are present at the time of the review are scored. Fourth, the process does not take into account all system issues that can affect the integrity of the program. Lastly, the process does not address why a problem exists within a program.

Despite these limitations, there are a number of advantages to this process. First, the criteria are based on empirically-derived principles of effective intervention. Second, the process provides a measure of program integrity and quality; in other words, it provides insight into the

“black box” of the program, and this is something that an outcome study alone does not provide.

Third, the results can be ascertained relatively quickly. Fourth, it identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. It provides the program with feedback regarding what it is doing that is consistent with the research on effective interventions, as well as those areas that

need improvement. Fifth, it generates some useful recommendations for program improvement.

Finally, it allows for comparisons with other programs that have been assessed using the same

criteria. Since program integrity and quality can change over time, it allows a program to

reassess its progress at a later date.

Norm Information

Researchers at the University of Cincinnati have assessed over 550 programs nationwide,

and have developed a large database on correctional intervention programs.6Consistent with

other research, approximately 7 percent of the programs assessed have been classified as Highly

Effective, 18 percent have been classified as Effective, 33 percent have been classified as Needs

Improvement, and 42 percent have been classified as Ineffective.7

Data Collection

Four CPC and CPC-GA evaluators led teams of two or more research associates to

conduct the 95 assessments from February 2009 through April 2009. Data from the CPC and

CPC-GA were gathered through structured interviews with the program directors, unit managers, group facilitators, correctional counselors, correctional officers, and program participants. Other sources of information include an examination of program documentation, treatment manuals and curricula, review of sample case files, and observation of treatment groups. Finally, all staff

were asked to complete a general staff survey.

RESULTS

Program Evaluation Results

6 Several versions of the CPAI were used prior to the development of the CPC. Scores and averages have been adjusted as needed. 7 The previous categories used were Very Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory. 19

The following section outlines the results of the Evidence-based Correctional Program

Checklist-Group Assessment (CPC-GA) and the Evidence-based Correctional Program Checklist

(CPC). The purpose of this section is to provide a description and rationale for CPC-GA and

CPC criteria items and to outline the overall strengths and areas that need improvement within

the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections evaluated programs. Appendix B offers specific

feedback to the twenty-four institutions.

Figure 1 provides average CPC and CPC-GA scores for each state correctional institution

assessed. As can be seen, there is not a large range in scores across institutions. Rather, all but

three institutions scored in the needs improvement (46-54) and effective (55-64) ranges. For

example, Coal Township and Mahanoy both scored in the ineffective range with scores of 43.6

percent and 45.5 percent respectfully, while Muncy scored in the highly effective range with a

score of 69 percent. When comparing scores on the CPC and CPC-GA across the individual

programs, Table 2 shows that as a whole, programs scored between 37.5% and 77.8%. In

particular, programs ranged from ineffective to highly effective, but the overall mean was 54.9

percent for all programs, falling just outside the effective range. The only exception was

Thinking for a Change, which scored in the effective range at 58.5 percent. While some overall

program scores may appear disappointing, it is important to note that of those programs assessed

across the nation with the Evidence-based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC)8, only 25 percent fall within an effective or highly effective range. Hence, even the lowest average program

score of 53.1 percent falls above the national CPC average.

Figures 2 through 5 show the CPC-GA and CPC scores for each program by state correctional institution. Again, there is not a considerable amount of variation across institutions

8 Note that national averages have not been established for the CPC-GA, since this is a newer version of the CPC. 20 for the individual programs. Figure 2 shows the results of the Thinking for a Change program and that the majority of programs scored within a five point range. Figure 3 shows that Batterer’s

Intervention scores by state correctional institution ranged from 42.1% to 62.5%, showing a larger range across all programs than the Thinking for A Change programs but slightly less variation. Figure 4 shows the results for Violence Prevention programming where the majority of programs scored between 47.3% and 57.1%. Finally, Figure 5 shows the scores for the sex offender programs. Again, while there is some variation, the majority of the programs scored within a twelve point range.

Looking at Figures 2-5, it is also clear that some institutions consistently had high program scores. For example, Muncy, Huntingdon, and Albion, scored in the effective (55%-

64%) to highly effective (65%-100%) range for all four programs assessed. On the other hand, some institutions consistently scored in the needs improvement (45% - 54%) and ineffective

(45% or less) ranges. Camp Hill and Mahanoy consistently scored in the needs improvement range, while Coal Township and Cresson scored in either the ineffective or needs improvement range on all programs. The following sections will describe in more detail the PADOC overall results and the results of each program assessed on the program integrity indicators of the CPC and CPC-GA.

Table 2: PADOC CPC-GA and CPC Program Evaluation Results

Program Range Overall Mean Capacity Mean Content Mean

All Programs 37.5 - 77.8 54.9 52.2 55.8

Thinking for a 41.1 - 77.8 58.5 51.1 61.2 Change

Batterer’s 42.1 - 62.5 53.1 51.5 53.5 Intervention

Violence 37.5 - 69.6 54.6 50.8 56.0 Prevention

Outpatient Sex 37.7 - 68.5 53.3 55.6 52.3 Offender

TC Sex Offender 46.7 - 57.9 53.5 52.5 54.2

Figure 1: CPC-GA Scores by State Correctional Institution

100 90 80 Overall Rating 70 Highly Effective 60 Effective 50 Needs Improvement 40 Ineffective 30

20 10

0 Coal Township Mahanoy Cresson Hill Camp Graterford Somerset Grove Pine Houtzdale Highlands Laurel Fayette Dallas Cambdrige Springs Forest Waymart Albion Frackville Mercer Retreat Greene Smithfield Greensburg Rockview Huntingdon Muncy

Figure 2: CPC-GA Scores for Thinking for a Change by State Correctional Institution

100 90 80 70 60 Overall Rating 50 Ineffective Needs Improvement 40 Effective 30 Highly Effective 20 10 Cresson Fayette Graterford Hill Camp Forest Waymart Pine Grove Somerset Laurel Highlands Greensburg Retreat Rockview Muncy Frackville 0 Township Coal Mahanoy Smithfield Albion Houtzdale Cambdrige Springs Greene Huntington Mercer

Figure 3: CPC-GA Scores for Batterer’s Intervention Program by State Correctional Institution

100 90 80 70 Overall Rating 60 Ineffective 50 Needs Improvement 40 Effective 30 20 10 Laurel Highlands Dallas Frackville HIll Camp Fayette Smithfield Grove Pine Forest Retreat Albion Waymart Greene Huntingdon Graterford Houtzdale Rockview 0 Coal Township Cresson Mahanoy Greensburg Somerset Mercer

*SCI- Cambridge Springs and SCI- Muncy did not offer Batterer’s Intervention Programs

Figure 4: CPC-GA Scores for Violence Prevention Program by State Correctional Institution

100 90 80 70 Overall Rating 60 Ineffective 50 Needs Improvement 40 Effective 30 Highly Effective 20 10 Smithfield Smithfield 0 Township Coal Cresson Graterford Hill Camp Mahanoy Fayette Grove Pine Somerset Dallas Waymart Albion Greensburg Houtzdale Highlands Laurel Cambridge Springs Forest Greene Retreat Huntingdon Mercer Rockview Frackville Muncy

Fi gure 5: CPC and CPC-GA Scores f or Sex Of f ender Programs by State Correcti onal Insti tuti on

100 90 80 70

Overall Rating 60 50 Ineffective Needs Improvement 40 Effective 30 Highly Effective 20 10

0 Frackville Highlands Laurel Grove Pine Somerset Mahanoy TC Rockview Mercer Township Coal Springs Cambridge Cresson Camp Hill Greene TC Houtzdale Retreat TC Cresson Waymart Fayette TCAlbion Albion Dallas Greensburg Graterford Muncy Smithfield Huntingdon

* SCI Forest is the only institution that did not offer a sex offender program

Program Integrity Indicators

PROGRAM STAFF AND SUPPORT

CPC-GA Indicators: Programs that have an individual in place to oversee and manage the group being offered tend to be more effective. This individual should be involved in the selection and supervision of group facilitators. Facilitators should have a minimum of an associate’s degree in a helping profession and at least two years of experience in a correctional treatment setting. Furthermore, group facilitators should be selected for skills and values consistent with the rehabilitative ideal. Effective programs hold regular and formalized staff meetings and provide staff with formalized training in the theory and practice of the intervention being facilitated. Effective programs have ethical guidelines in place for staff and have the support of key stakeholders.

CPC Indicators: The CPC, used to assess the sex offender therapeutic communities (SOPTC), measures specific items different than the individual indicators list above. In particular, the program coordinator should also be qualified and experienced to work with the offender population and involved in the training of staff and the direct service delivery to offenders.

Additionally, effective programs conduct a thorough literature review and pilot new interventions before the program/intervention begins. Programs that have been in existence for three years or more and are considered to have stable and adequate funding tend to be more effective. Equally as important is that staff have input into the program and are supportive of the goals and values of the program. Finally, effective programs assess staff at least annually and provide regular clinical supervision on service delivery skills. It should also be noted that the Leadership and Staff Characteristics components of the CPC were collapsed into the Program

Staff and Support section of the CPC-GA.

PADOC RESULTS

Across the programs evaluated within the PADOC, most of them had strong program

staff and support. The average percent for program staff and support was 57.9 (effective range).

Most programs had a program director in place. Specifically, program directors were often

involved in the selection of staff and therefore, most of the selected staff met the minimum

qualifications of the CPC and CPC-GA in way of education and experience. Lastly, the PADOC

had ethical guidelines in place for staff in all evaluated programs and most programs reported

having the support of key stakeholders.

While program directors were in place in most programs, not all were involved in the supervision of program staff. Specifically, program directors were involved in the supervision of group facilitators in only 15.7 percent of the programs evaluated. Furthermore, most of the

institutions did not hold regular formal staff meetings and instead communicated through an

open door policy. Additionally, not all group facilitators were selected based on skills and values

supportive of offender treatment and change, but rather due to position openings. While the

PADOC offered initial training for Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, and Violence

Prevention for treatment specialists, not all received this training. Moreover, correctional

counselors who filled in as group facilitators were rarely trained in the curriculum. Similarly, not

all psychology staff facilitating sex offense specific groups were trained in the Medlin:

Responsible Living curriculum. Finally, none of the group facilitators received regular on-going

training directly related to the facilitation of group or service delivery.

CPC-GA RESULTS

The results of the PADOC Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence

Prevention, and outpatient sex offender programs are consistent with the overall findings of the

PADOC for the program staff and support section.

CPC RESULTS

While the sex offender therapeutic community results were consistent with the overall

PADOC results, there is one exception to note. In particular, the staff selected to work within the

TCs were not always selected for skills and values consistent with the rehabilitative ideal. This was especially noted with the correctional officers assigned to the TCs.

Looking at the additional CPC program integrity indicators, the TCs had program coordinators who were qualified by way of education and experience, as most were licensed clinicians. The majority of the programs have been in operation for three or more years and reported being supported by the community at-large and as having adequate funding.

Furthermore, the majority of the programs staff had input into the program, were supportive of the goals and values of the program, and received regular clinical supervision on service delivery skills. Additionally, only half of the program coordinators were involved in the direct training of staff and service delivery to offenders. Also, while the PADOC often conducts a thorough literature review and pilots interventions, not all programs review the literature themselves or piloted new interventions on their specific TC. Finally, not all of the programs assessed staff at least annually on service delivery skills.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

CPC-GA Indicators: Observation of groups with feedback ensures that services are being

delivered as intended. Likewise, program participants should be surveyed as to their satisfaction

with the group to get the participants’ perception of the quality of services. Effective programs

use some form of pre/post testing of offenders of target behaviors and have clear criteria as to

when an individual has successfully completed the treatment group. Likewise, a discharge

summary should be completed on each offender at program completion.

CPC Indicators: In addition to the individual indicators list in the paragraph above, effective

programs also track recidivism, have an evaluator working with the program, and have been

evaluated and found effective at reducing recidivism.

PADOC RESULTS

Overall, programs scored poorly in the quality assurance section. The average score was

41.5 percent (ineffective range). While poor scores in quality assurance are not uncommon

among correctional programs, quality assurance is essential for managing the fidelity of

evidence-based models. There are, however, two identified strengths noted in this section. The first is that the majority of programs assessed incorporated systematic pre/post testing of inmates

for each group. This is a recent initiative by the PADOC, which we commend, and while not all

institutions have fully implemented pre/post testing, all are making efforts to do so. Second, the

majority of the programs constructed discharge summaries at group completion. Group facilitators consistently completed these summaries, called Correctional Program Evaluations,

across the PADOC. Despite this similarity, the thoroughness with which forms were completed

varied across group facilitator. For example, some discharge summaries included specific

information about group performance and future recommendations, while others simply

indicated the inmate’s performance was adequate for successful completion.

Although the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has developed a group observation

form to allow for the evaluation of group facilitation, in the majority of institutions the program

coordinator did not observe the facilitation of group and provide specific feedback to the

facilitators. Furthermore, the majority of programs did not survey the program participants as to

satisfaction with the group. Lastly, most programs evaluated did not have formal objective

criteria for group completion in place. Group completion was based on a subjective

determination of program participation and knowledge gain.

CPC-GA RESULTS

The results of the Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, and Violence

Prevention groups were similar to that of the overall PADOC results in terms of the program

integrity indicator, quality assurance. However, the outpatient sex offense specific programming results differed from the overall PADOC findings in one area. Specifically, the outpatient sex offender programs do not use some form of pre/post testing of program participants. While the outpatient sex offender programming group manual affords the group participants a chance to rate themselves at the end of each session, the program does not incorporate systematic objective pre/post testing of inmates for group.

CPC RESULTS

The sex offender therapeutic communities’ results on the CPC were consistent with the

overall PADOC results, except that the TCs do not consistently use pre/post testing to determine

offender’s progress on target behaviors. In terms of CPC specific concerns, while the PADOC

has researchers working with the DOC programs, the individual programs were not aware of the

recidivism data or of any evaluations conducted on their specific program.

ASSESSMENT

CPC-GA Indicators: For programs to be effective it is important that they have rational

exclusionary criteria in place so that they accept only those clients for whom the group can

provide adequate services. It is also important for correctional programs to assess participants on

important risk, need and responsivity factors with standardized and validated instruments.

Finally, programs that target moderate to high-risk offenders tend to be more effective at

reducing recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). The majority of group participants should also

have a moderate to high need in the specific targeted need of that group9.

CPC Indicators: The CPC is also concerned with whether or not the program uses risk and need

assessments that have been validated on a similar offender population within the last five years.

PADOC RESULTS

Overall, assessment is a clear area of strength for the PADOC. The average score for this

section was 84.1 percent, which falls well into the highly effective range. Inmates were

thoroughly assessed on risk, need, and responsivity with standardized assessment tools

throughout the programs evaluated. However, the assessment information and matrix was not

9 These two items, targeting higher risk and need offenders, were considered non-applicable for the sex offender program evaluations. Rationale for doing so include 1) inmates referred to the outpatient and SOP-TCs were assessed using both the LSI-R to measure risk for general offending and Static-99 to measure sex offending risk. Given that there tends to be wide variation as to how sex offenders score across general and sex offender specific risk tools, both types of risk could not be captured in scoring this item; 2) sex offenders, regardless of risk level, are often mandated to complete sex offender treatment. The outpatient SOPs were designed to offer a less intensive treatment option for lower risk sex offenders, as well as more intensive options for moderate to high risk (including TCs at some institutions). Since this is an appropriate way for PADOC to manage sex offender treatment, these items were deemed N/A for all sex offender programming. 33

used as consistently as designed. Additional factors often influenced group placement and as a result, groups did not always regularly target higher risk and higher need offenders.

CPC-GA RESULTS

When examining the programs evaluated with the CPC-GA, the Violence Prevention results were consistent with the overall PADOC results in terms of both strengths and weaknesses for the assessment program integrity indicator. On the other hand, Thinking for a

Change programs differed slightly in that they did not consistently target moderate to high risk offenders. This means offenders placed in Thinking for a Change groups were not always high risk, but rather ranged in risk from low to high. Lastly, Batterer’s Intervention programming was consistent with the overall PADOC findings with two exceptions. Batterer’s Intervention groups did not tend to target high risk or high need inmates in the groups. As such, risk levels were mixed and not all inmates placed in Batterer’s Intervention were identified as having a need in the area of domestic violence. The majority of outpatient sex offense specific programming was consistent with the PADOC assessment results in that offenders were assessed on risk and need and staff identified that offenders were appropriately placed into programs.

CPC RESULTS

The results of the sex offender therapeutic community programs are consistent with the

overall PADOC results, in that the TCs had exclusionary criteria in place, took appropriate

clients, and assessed clients on risk, need, and responsivity. While the LSI-R and RST

assessments have been validated on PADOC offenders, the Static-99 has not.

TREATMENT

CPC-GA Indicators: This final section of the CPC and CPC-GA is the largest and covers how programs deliver programming and group interventions. Programs should target crime- producing behaviors through evidence-based practices including groups facilitated by staff who are knowledgeable of the group curriculum and who encourage participation of group members, who make regular and consistent use of the manual, assign and review homework regularly, and who establish and follow group rules. Furthermore, the appropriate use of reinforcers and punishers are integral to effective programming. The use of structured skill building activities, cognitive restructuring, and relapse prevention and planning should also be regularly and consistently incorporated components of the group intervention. Lastly, the relationship skills of the staff are important in as much as the staff should have clearly established boundaries and rapport with program participants.

CPC Indicators: Of all the program integrity indicators, the treatment one has the most dissimilarity between the CPC and CPC-GA. Since the therapeutic community is the unit of analysis for the CPC it does not measure all the group specific factors of the CPC-GA. For

example, the CPC does not measure facilitator knowledge, homework assignment, group norms,

or the incorporation of cognitive restructuring techniques or relapse prevention planning to name

a few.

While the overall themes are consistent, and some items the same, the CPC also identifies

effective programs as those programs who target more criminogenic needs than non-

criminogenic, separate program participants from the rest of the institution population, and

involve the participants in therapeutic tasks at least 40 percent of the time during the week. There

should be evidence that programs attempt to match offenders to services that best match with

their style of learning and to staff based on some responsivity factors. As such, staff should be

35 matched to the program and the groups based on their skills, experience, education or training.

Offenders should also have input into some programmatic features of the program through a formal process. Lastly, effective programs also provide quality aftercare services to the participants.

PADOC RESULTS

Overall, the PADOC programs had some shortcomings in the treatment section of the

CPC-GA and CPC as evidenced by the average score of 51.7% (needs improvement range).

While the evaluated programs targeted crime-producing behaviors, including antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, problem solving, anger and aggression, conflict resolution, social skills, and inappropriate sexual behavior, not all programs consistently incorporated evidence-based practices into the program. The majority of the programs did, however, have facilitators who were knowledgeable about the material being presented and who encouraged group members to participate during group and through homework assignments. In addition, the majority of group facilitators established group norms, always facilitated group, and followed the assigned manual for the particular group. Group facilitators established rapport appropriately, maintained a professional relationship with their group participants, and avoided arguments consistently across the majority of groups. Finally, in those groups were there were co-facilitators responsible for facilitating group, both were usually active throughout the session.

Equally important is the facilitator’s ability to address responsivity factors with the group. The majority of group facilitators addressed some participant barriers; however, few used responsivity assessments to help identify potential barriers or guide placement into group to better match group, staff and offender. For example, PADOC assesses for intelligence and

36 academic achievement upon admission. The results of these assessments could identify those group participants who may need assistance with the thinking reports used in Thinking for a

Change. Also of concern is the ability of the evaluated groups to begin and end on time due to the scheduled movement of inmates throughout the prison. While most group facilitators were prepared to begin at the scheduled time, group often began late to accommodate those inmates coming from a farther location or who were released from their location late. Furthermore, of those programs assessed, most groups regularly exceeded the recommended facilitator to participant ratio of 8 to 10 participants per facilitator.

The appropriate use of reinforcers and punishers could be improved in all PADOC programs assessed. In particular, the types of reinforcers identified and applied were appropriate but lacking in variety in nearly all of the groups assessed. Similarly, most groups did not provide a range of acceptable punishers, as many relied on removal from group as the main punisher.

Furthermore, only a little more than half of the groups showed evidence of dealing with noncompliance. The procedure for reinforcing prosocial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior needs improvement across groups as well. In most programs there was no written policy on the use of rewards and punishers, and many group facilitators did not see reinforcing or punishing behavior as their role. As such, when a punisher was applied in was rare that a prosocial alternative was offered or that staff looked for and dealt with the negative consequences of punishment (e.g., emotional reactions, avoidance, aggression, perpetuation effects, etc). Finally, no groups met the recommended 4:1 ratio of the frequency of rewards to punishers.

Along with effective reinforcement and punishment strategies, PADOC programs did not consistently make use of structured skill building activities such as modeling and explaining the benefits of skills, role playing or skill rehearsal with corrective feedback, and graduated rehearsal

with corrective feedback. Furthermore, while most of the programs assessed identified

underlying thoughts and values through use of thinking reports, anger logs, or other group

activities designed to uncover distorted thinking, and addressed them, few programs regularly

attempted to teach participants how to replace their antisocial thoughts with more prosocial

thoughts. Finally, across PADOC very few programs devoted sessions to developing and

practicing risk plans or relapse prevention techniques.

CPC-GA RESULTS

Thinking for a Change: The Thinking for a Change results are consistent with the overall

PADOC results of the treatment program integrity indicator with two exceptions. The first

difference is that Thinking for a Change is considered an evidence-based curriculum as it

integrates key cognitive-behavioral techniques and the principles of social learning theories

consistently throughout the manual. The second and related difference is that the Thinking for a

Change curriculum regularly integrates modeling and role-playing with corrective feedback into group sessions. Of the Thinking for a Change groups observed, evidence showed that the majority of facilitators regularly modeled the skills, explained the benefits of the skills, and rehearsed with participants the new skills. However, similar to PADOC, there was little evidence supporting the use of graduated practice.

Batterer’s Intervention: There are two major areas where Batterer’s Intervention programming results differed from the overall PADOC results. The first area concerns the curriculum for current programming, the Duluth model, Power and Control: Tactics of Men who Batter. In a

review of the literature on domestic violence programs and an article provided by PADOC,

researchers note that Duluth-model programs tend to not be considered an evidenced-based

38 treatment model as they are not based on social learning theories or the “what works” literature, and outcome data does not support the curriculum as effective in reducing recidivism (Stover,

Meadows, Kaufman, 2009; Jackson, Feder, Forde, Davis, Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003; Feder &

Dugan, 2002). The second exception, a strength for the program, falls under the recommended group size. The Duluth model requires Batterer’s Intervention groups be co-facilitated by a male and a female. As such, more than half of the groups evaluated met the recommended group size of 8 to 10 participants per facilitator.

Violence Prevention: The results of the Violence Prevention programs assessed are consistent with that of the overall PADOC results for the treatment program integrity indicator.

Outpatient Sex Offender: The results of the outpatient sex offender programs assessed are consistent with that of the overall PADOC results on the treatment program integrity indicator.

CPC RESULTS

When considering the common treatment indicators, the sex offender therapeutic community program results were consistent with the overall PADOC results. In addition, the

CPC specific items were examined. The majority of the SOPTCs targeted more criminogenic needs than non-criminogenic, and involved participants in therapeutic related tasks between 40 and 70 percent of the time. Furthermore, SOPTCs matched offenders to treatment groups through the SNU group and Spanish speaking only groups and afforded all inmates an opportunity to provide input into programmatic aspects of the TC. Finally, while most SOPTCs placed offenders into the sex offense specific aftercare group, the group itself was not structured so to provide reassessment of risk and need or formal planning for release.

Staff Survey Results

Organizational climate can play a key role in the implementation of evidence-based

practices (Simpson & Flynn, 2007), as both individual and program level factors are influential

throughout the implementation process. One common method used to assess organizational

climate is through use of surveys that collect information from the individuals within an

organization. PADOC staff were surveyed to ascertain their perspective on treatment, important

staff characteristics, and the specific treatment programs being assessed (Thinking for a Change,

Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention, and Sex Offender). DOC staff at each institution

were asked to complete the Pennsylvania Staff Survey to aid in the assessment of the

organizational culture. As such, the purpose of this section is to provide a review of the

responses. For information regarding responses from each institution, please see the graphs at the

end of each institution’s summaries in Appendix B10.

All PADOC institutions that participated in the evaluation were sent a staff survey

electronically approximately one week prior to the scheduled site visit.11 The major areas

assessed include important staff characteristics, important roles and skills of correctional

officers, and the value of programming. Institutional administrators were asked to distribute the

survey to a sample of any staff that have contact with inmates. The majority of surveys were

collected during the time of the site visit. Table 3 provides descriptive information on staff that

completed the survey. Correctional officers account for the largest group of staff respondents

(38.9%), followed by treatment staff (26%), administrative/support staff (18.1%), education staff

(7.8%), and then other staff (6.6%). Other staff include medical, activities department, food

10 SCI-Forest did not have any respondents for the Staff Survey thus there will be no graph for SCI Forest for Staff Survey results. 11 Please see Appendix A for a copy of the survey 40 service, vocational, and religious staff, parole officers, and volunteers. On average, staff survey respondents have worked at their respective institution for nine years, with a range of less than one year to 33 years. As can be seen in Table 3 the number of respondents at each institution varied immensely.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of the Staff Survey N % Respondent Position (n = 1197) Custody/Security 478 38.9 Treatment/Programming 320 26.0 Education 96 7.8 Administration/Support 222 18.1 Other 81 6.6

Years at Institution (n = 1146) Mean 9 Range 0 - 33

Institution (n = 1229) Albion 28 2.3 Cambridge Springs 46 3.7 Camp Hill 44 3.6 Coal Township 12 1.0 Cresson 72 5.9 Dallas 43 3.5 Fayette 21 1.7 Frackville 32 2.6 Graterford 23 1.9 Greene 53 4.3 Greensburg 54 4.4 Houtzdale 82 6.7 Huntingdon 105 8.5 Laurel Highlands 55 4.5 Mahanoy 64 5.2 Mercer 41 3.3 Muncy 61 5.0 Pine Grove 50 4.1 Retreat 33 2.7 Rockview 212 17.2 Smithfield 37 3.0 Somerset 39 3.2 Waymart 22 1.8

All staff surveyed were asked to assess how prison administration, treatment staff, and security/custody staff were individually supportive of programming. Questions were in the form of 5-item Likert scales that included the choices of unsupportive, little support, neutral, supportive, or very supportive. The categories of unsupportive, little support, and neutral were collapsed to form the category labeled “Unsupportive,” while the categories of supportive and very supportive were collapsed to create the category “Supportive.” Table 4 displays these findings.

Table 4: Survey Results on Support for Treatment Supportive Unsupportive n % n % Prison Administration Support Programming (n = 1222) 954 78.1 268 21.9

Treatment Staff Support Programming (n = 1222) 968 79.2 254 20.8

Security/Custody Staff Support Programming (n = 1223) 602 49.2 621 50.8

As noted from table 4, 954 (78.1%) respondents felt that prison administration is supportive of programming at the State Correctional Institutions. This same pattern held for the respondents rating of the treatment staff, with roughly 79 percent (968) of respondents rating treatment staff as supportive of treatment. However, just under half of the respondents (49.2%) felt that security/custody staff were supportive of programming.

The Staff Survey also asked respondents questions surrounding how they felt the institutional environment impacted treatment. Respondents were asked to whether or not they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, strongly disagreed, or they were unsure on three

42 environmental impact questions. These five categories were collapsed to form the categories of

“Agree” and “Disagree,” with the unsure option being placed in the “Disagree” category. These questions asked staff whether they felt that the environment was conducive to programming; if they felt their institution was good for programming; and if they felt that programs were well- organized at their institution.

Findings from the environmental questions are located in Table 5. As the table indicates,

61.2 percent of respondents felt that the institutional environment was conducive to programming for inmates. A similar percentage (61.3%) of respondents felt that programs at their institution were well organized. Finally, almost three quarters of the staff surveyed (73.2%) felt that their institution was a good institution for providing inmate programming.

Table 5: Survey Results on Environmental Factors of Programming Agree Disagree n % n % Prison Environment is Conducive to Programming (n = 1222) 748 61.2 474 38.8

Programs are Well-Organized (n = 1225) 751 61.3 474 38.7

Respondent’s Institution Provides Good Inmate Programming (n = 899 73.2 329 26.8 1228)

Table 6 reports the responses to questions regarding management of behavior and benefits of programming at institutions. Nearly 71 percent of respondents agreed that inmate behavior was well managed at their institution. Moreover, 85 percent felt that inmates were safe at their institution. According to the respondents, one of the reasons for this may be a result of the programming provided by the institutions, as roughly 70 percent of respondents felt that

programming helped maintain order in their institution. However, only 45 percent of

respondents stated that inmates benefited from their institutions programming. Nevertheless,

almost 80 percent of respondents felt that programming was important for inmates, and 63 percent felt that inmates could change.

Table 6: Survey Results on Benefits of Programming and Behavior Management Agree Disagree n % n % Inmate Behavior is Well-Managed 867 70.8 358 29.2 (n = 1225)

Inmate are Safe (n = 1224) 1039 84.9 185 15.1

Programming Helps Maintain Order (n = 1224) 847 69.2 377 30.8

Inmates Benefit from Programming (n = 1226) 554 45.2 672 54.8

Programming is Important for Inmates (n = 1225) 971 79.3 254 20.7

Inmates Can Change (n = 1226) 774 63.1 452 36.9

Staff were also asked to rate the importance of several characteristics when interacting

with inmates. Respondents indicated that when interacting with inmates, it is important to be:

caring, empathetic, enthusiastic, fair, and consistent. In addition, respondents also felt that it was

important to be strict, firm, and authoritative. Finally, respondents did not feel that they needed

to be confidential when interacting with inmates.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their perception of correctional officer roles and

attitudes at their institution on a variety of factors. Roughly 80 percent (982 out of 1,222) of

respondents felt that the primary role of correctional officers was to enforce the rules and

policies of the institution, while only 20 percent (240 out of 1,222) felt that the primary role of

correctional officers was offender rehabilitation. Almost 62 percent of respondents felt that

correctional officers used sanction in order to reform the offender rather than punish the

offender.

Evaluating the relationship that correctional officers have with inmates, the majority of respondents (72%; 872 out of 1,217) felt that correctional officers had an impartial relationship with the inmates as opposed to a relationship that displayed concern. Just over half (57.8%; 703 out of 1,216) of staff survey respondents felt that correctional officers used reinforcements more than punishments to change inmate behavior. In addition, two thirds of respondents (66.6%; 805 out of 1,208) indicated that correctional officers were more likely to use negotiation over coercion as a style of communication with inmates. A similar percentage of respondents

(66.2%; 805 out of 1,216) felt that the ability to enforce was a more important skill for correctional officers than the ability to counsel. Almost 80 percent of respondents (79.7%; 972 out of 1,220) felt that the primary purpose of monitoring inmate activities was to ensure compliance and not to promote change. In addition, the majority of respondents (58.7%; 716 out of 1,220) felt that correctional officer attitudes towards inmates were skeptical and not hopeful. Respondents were also asked as to whether they thought correctional officers’ role with inmates was best described as a boss or a coach. Over 75 percent (940 out of 1,217) felt that boss was a reflection of correctional officers’ role with inmates.

Staff survey respondents were also asked to rate the value of each type of program assessed (i.e., sex offender programming, violence prevention, batterers prevention programming, and thinking for a change programming). Respondents could rate a program as

either highly valuable, valuable, of little value, of no value, unsure, or not applicable. The

45 responses of not applicable were excluded from any calculation, and the responses of no value and of little value were collapsed to form the category of “No Value,” and the responses of highly valuable and valuable were collapsed into the category of “Valuable.” Table 7 displays the results for each of these programs.

Table 7: Respondent Rated Value of Programming by Type of Program Valuable No Value Unsure n % n % n % Sex Offender Programming 664 55.4 287 23.9 248 20.7 (n = 1199)

Violence Prevention 390 66.1 112 19.0 88 14.9 Programming (n = 590)

Batterers Intervention 359 62.8 114 19.9 99 17.3 Programming (n = 572)

Thinking for a Change 379 64.2 115 19.5 96 16.3 Programming (n = 590)

As the table indicates, 55 percent of respondents felt that the sex offender programming was valuable, where almost 24 percent felt the program was not valuable and almost 21 percent were unsure. As for the violence prevention programming, two thirds of respondents felt that this program had value, while 19 percent felt the program had little value. Sixty-three percent of respondents rated the Batterers Intervention program as having value, while 20 percent felt that batterers programming had no value. Finally, almost 65 percent of respondents felt that the

Thinking for a Change program has value, whereas less than 20 percent of respondents felt that this program did not have value.

These survey results help to provide a more holistic view of how the PADOC staff view programming in the institutions they work in. In general, the results seem to confirm that staff

46 view programming as an integral part of their duties. Staff feel there is support for programming from the administration and treatment staff. Staff also feel that the institutional environment was conducive for aspects of programming. Responses from the survey, however, did seem to indicate that correctional officers’ role in programming is limited; indicating the primary role of correctional officer across institutions is that of security/custody with less emphasis on rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings from the series of state correctional institution group and program evaluations will be used to draw some general conclusions about the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, Violence Prevention, and Sex

Offender specific programs. Overall strengths and areas for improvement are shown below in

Figure 6. Overall strengths will be reviewed first, followed by an examination of areas for improvement and recommendations in what follows. These recommendations are designed to assist the PADOC in enhancing evidence-based programming and services for inmates.

Figure 6: PADOC CPC-GA Domain Scores

100

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective

50 Needs Improvement 40 Ineffective 30

0 Program Staff and Support QA Assessment Treatment

PA DOC 57.9 40.6 84.5 51.3

*Includes CPC and CPC-GA Scores. For the full CPCs conducted on the sex offender therapeutic communities, Program Leadership and Staff Characteristics were combined under Program Staff and Support. Strengths

As a whole, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections program staff appear dedicated to offender rehabilitation and receptive to feedback that might assist the DOC in providing more effective correctional services. For the most part, the institutions that were assessed were accommodating to the evaluation process and eager to learn how to improve their programming.

Likewise, treatment program staff were forthcoming with information necessary to examine the current system so that recommendations for improvement could be made.

Second, many of the staff interviewed were knowledgeable about the curriculum being used and open to additional training opportunities, as well as adapting how they deliver services to better adhere to evidence-based principles. This is most likely due to the recent switch to

Treatment Specialists who have the responsibility of facilitating Thinking for a Change,

Batterer’s Intervention and Violence Prevention programming. This increases the consistency of treatment services being delivered within institutions and overall appears to be a positive move for the department. The same is true for the sex offense specific programs. The psychology staff oversee and facilitate those programs, which again leads to increased consistency of treatment services.

Third, as evidenced from the program evaluation scores and seen in Figure 6, there were areas where programming across the DOC did well. For example, most institutions demonstrated strong s`cores with regard to program staff and support. In fact, PADOC scored in the effective range (61.5%) in this domain. All programs had a program coordinator in place, and most program coordinators were involved in the selection of staff, while SOP program coordinators also provided clinical supervision to psychology staff. This indicates that the institutions have the

49 leadership capacity to make programmatic adaptations so that effective programming is delivered in a more consistent manner. This also suggests that the majority of the institutions have a good foundation upon which to enhance their current services, since many of the program staff are qualified, experienced, and capable of delivering evidence-based services.

Another major strength for the Pennsylvania DOC is the area of assessment. Figure 6 shows an overall assessment score of 78.7 percent (highly effective range). Given that the DOC has two major assessment centers, SCI Camp Hill and SCI Muncy, the PADOC has gone to great lengths to ensure that an assessment process is in place for each inmate. Each inmate is given a full battery of standardized and validated assessments that are to be used to guide program placement. Some programs made use of the assessment information by separating groups by risk, targeting higher need inmates, and using responsivity assessments to match treatment services.

For example, many sex offense specific programs offered a Special Needs Unit (SNU) group.

This group is for those inmates identified as having significant mental health problems, cognitive deficiencies, or others limitations that could preclude them from participating in the other sex offense specific groups. Other programs offered a Spanish speaking only group to meet the needs of those inmates whose primarily language was Spanish. However, examples like this were not consistent across all programs. As such, many of the following recommendations will focus on how to more effectively use the assessments to guide decisions to increase consistency with the risk, need, and responsivity principles.

Finally, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a whole appears willing to devote the time, energy and resources to improving treatment services throughout the DOC. The evaluation revealed that the PADOC has fully implemented, with the support of their treatment staff, structured curricula for their cognitive skills group, Thinking for a Change, their Batterer’s

Intervention and Violence Prevention groups, along with their sex offense specific programming.

This was evidenced by the facilitators’ knowledge shown during group facilitation, participation of group members, and consistent use of the treatment manual. Furthermore, staff made constant attempts to address the different learning styles and potential barriers of each participant. Finally, the desire to have a systematic evaluation of the several treatment programs offered by the DOC suggests openness to feedback about how to enhance services and programming and a dedication to improvement of the system.

Areas for Improvement Program Staff and Support A primary need area for PADOC involves the training and supervision of treatment staff.

Although most institutions have program supervisors in place and offer initial training to treatment staff, this is not true across all institutions or all programs. For example, many psychology staff have recently started facilitating sex offender groups, and since the last Medlin training was a few years ago, these facilitators have not been trained in the curriculum. Another concern lies within the treatment specialist facilitated groups. Since moving to the treatment specialist position, the DOC has required the treatment specialists to be trained in the Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Prevention, and Violence Prevention curricula. While we commend such a decision, not all individuals facilitating these groups have participated in the curricula specific training. With recent increases in referrals, many programs are having correctional counselor IIs facilitate groups. Unfortunately, many of these correctional counselors have not been trained in the program manual of the group they are facilitating. Equally problematic is that some group facilitators were not interested in facilitating groups or selected for skills and values related to offender rehabilitation. Thus, the need for not only initial training, but also on-going

training related to service delivery is important. To ensure all staff are formally trained on the

curriculum being used and to increase on-going training for staff, PADOC should consider the

following recommendations.

• Initial training for group facilitators should include at a minimum, an overview of the principles of effective intervention, assessment tools, the cognitive-behavioral model plus training specific to the curricula being used within that program. Initial training should also include training on core correctional practices so that staff have the tools necessary to implement evidence-based practices.

• In addition, approximately 40 hours of on-going training should be provided yearly to staff to enhance their skills related to service delivery. When developing on-going training guidelines the following recommendations should be considered: o This training should be related to service delivery and in particular group facilitation. o Additional trainings should include such topics as anger management, sexual offending, or mental health issues as well as a review of the principles of effective interventions, behavioral strategies such as modeling and the application of reinforcers and punishers, booster sessions on the curriculum, group facilitation skills, discharge planning, and risk and need factors related to criminal conduct. Quality Assurance

Of significant concern for the PADOC is lack of accountability regarding the quality of

services being delivered. The PADOC domain score for quality assurance was 30.0 percent

(ineffective range). The program evaluations made it apparent that the internal quality assurance mechanisms among programs and services are limited. As such, program directors have limited knowledge as to the effectiveness of services delivered by staff. Regular supervision of staff helps to ensure that the program director, institution, and PADOC are all knowledgeable about how services are being delivered. Group observation, staff meetings to discuss cases, and file

reviews do not occur consistently throughout the programs.

• As such, the program director or clinical supervisor should observe groups at least once every program cycle, with structured feedback given to staff overseeing groups.

• To help structure this process it is recommended that the PADOC implement the group evaluation form, Program Evaluation Tool, or similar tool across all institutions facilitating the sex offense specific groups, Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, and Violence Prevention groups. Additionally, clients are rarely surveyed as to their satisfaction with the program nor are

they consistently required to show acquisition of prosocial skills prior to program completion.

While PADOC is working to implement pre/post testing for Thinking for a Change, Violence

Prevention, and Batterer’s Intervention groups, this is not system-wide yet nor does this process apply to sex offense specific programming. Therefore the following recommendations are made to increase PADOC’s knowledge of their programs’ effectiveness.

• Full adoption of pre/post testing of participants across programs will help to increase the PADOC and individual institutions’ knowledge as to the effectiveness of the services.

• Furthermore, a client satisfaction survey, or exit interview should be given to all inmates upon completion of the program, and data should be reviewed to determine changes that might benefit the program.

• Finally, at some point in the future, the PADOC as a whole should consider training a small evaluation team on quality assurance techniques, peer review processes, and a measure of program integrity possibly including the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist Program or Group Assessment. This will enable programs to make improvements on an ongoing basis to ensure evidence-based practices.

Assessment

As noted above, a primary strength for the PADOC is the centralized assessment and

classification process. However, the results of the assessments are not utilized consistently across

programs. As such, the intensity and duration of services are not always greater for those

inmates who are higher risk and/or higher need. Furthermore, responsivity assessments are not

always referenced when making decisions about treatment. To increase the use of the PADOC’s

Classification Summary and Correctional Plan and thus the use of the standardized assessment

results in treatment planning, the following recommendations should be considered:

• Staff responsible for placing inmates into the identified treatment group should use both the Classification Summary and Correctional Plan to guide that decision.

• Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, and Violence Prevention groups should be separated by risk level so that moderate to high risk inmates are referred to a moderate/high risk group and low risk inmates are referred to a low risk group.

• Sex offense specific programming should continue to offer low risk and moderate/high risk groups, but increase the use of the risk scores on both the general and sex offense specific assessments to ensure that groups are varied by risk and higher risk offenders receive the highest intensity and longest duration of services.

• PADOC should also consider validating the Static-99 on their population of sex offenders.

• Finally, to ensure that barriers to treatment do not go unnoticed, it is important to use the results of the responsivity assessments when assigning inmates to treatment groups. Separate groups can be created such as the special needs group or Spanish speaking groups, or individual group facilitators can use the assessments to address any potential barriers before, during or after the group sessions. For example, if a participant has cognitive deficiencies, the group facilitator could review the lesson with the inmate prior to the group. Treatment

As a whole, the PADOC treatment score was 45.5 percent (ineffective range) indicating several areas for improvement. First, research finds that correctional programs experience the greatest effects at reducing recidivism when a cognitive-behavioral/social learning model is used

(Andrews et al., 1990, Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Dowden and Andrews, 2000; Nicholaichuk et al., 2000; Aytes et al., 2001). With the exception of Thinking for a Change, the other programs did not use a consistent evidence-based model. Some components of the cognitive-behavioral model can be found in the Violence Prevention and Medlin: Responsible Living curricula, but the Batterer’s Intervention programming is based on the Duluth Model which has been found to be ineffective at reducing recidivism (Jackson, et al., 2003). It is our understanding that the

PADOC is revising the Violence Prevention curriculum and while we support this process, we

certainly encourage the increased use of cognitive-behavioral techniques within the revised curriculum. It is therefore recommended that:

• The PADOC adopt a curriculum that adheres to a cognitive-behavioral/social learning model for the Batterer’s Intervention group.

• The Violence Prevention and sex offense specific groups should increase their use of cognitive-behavioral techniques within the current curriculum or adopt a new curriculum that consistently incorporates cognitive-behavioral components throughout.

• To help increase the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques the low risk sex offense specific groups should use Phase 2: Behavioral Techniques of Medlin: Responsible Living instead of Phase 6: Sex Education. Looking closer at the Violence Prevention and sex offense specific curricula,

fundamental cognitive-behavioral components are missing. For example, the inclusion of skill

building techniques was lacking across curricula. Skill building is a core cognitive-behavioral

technique that is essential in any correctional program, especially group interventions. For

offenders to abstain from criminal behavior, they must develop the prosocial skills necessary to

better manage their lives. Skill building involves teaching, practice, and graduated rehearsal of

prosocial skills, which are applied in a structured manner. In order for PADOC to increase the

use of behavioral strategies to assist offenders in developing prosocial skills the following

recommendation is made.

• Within Violence Prevention and sex offense specific programming the basic approach to teaching skills should be followed. The approach includes: 1) defining the skills to be learned; 2) staff modeling the skill for the inmate; 3) rehearsing (or role playing) the skill; 4) practicing the skill in increasingly difficult situations; and 5) providing constructive feedback. Another key component of cognitive-behavioral programs involves the teaching of specific

skills to identify, address, and replace antisocial thoughts. Specifically, effective programs

devote some sessions to helping participants identify underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and

then how to replace those negative thoughts with prosocial thoughts. The focus on identification

and replacement of antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs should be increased within the

Violence Prevention and sex offense specific programs. To do this PADOC may consider the

following.

• Participants should be taught specific techniques to help identify underlying antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs. For example, this can include the use of thinking reports or a cost benefit analysis of their antisocial behavior.

• Additionally, participants should be taught how to identify triggers and cues for their thoughts and the strategies to manage those thoughts. For example, thought stopping is a cognitive-behavioral technique that can be easily incorporated into current programming.

• Finally, participants should be taught how to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. Techniques for this can include thinking reports, functional analysis, and rule tools. In the context of the group setting, the facilitator can use a more immediate approach. In this case, the facilitator discusses with the group and individual offender more prosocial interpretations of the offender’s verbalized antisocial thinking thus helping the individual identify and replace the negative thoughts. In order to give each inmate the opportunity to learn and practice new skills it is important that the group size not exceed 8 to 10 participants per facilitator. Most groups evaluated, including Thinking for a Change and Batterer’s Intervention exceeded this limit.

Therefore systematic changes to the groups should be considered by the PADOC.

• Specifically, the size of group needs to be limited to 8 to 10 participants per facilitator. Therefore, PADOC should consider increasing the number of facilitators per group from one to two, or limiting the number of participants placed in each group. Furthermore, the use of relapse prevention planning and practice was not a strong component of the offered curricula. Effective cognitive-behavioral programs also incorporate the development and practice of risk plans and relapse prevention techniques. While the sex offense specific and Batterer’s Intervention groups dedicated some sessions to the development of plans, the plans were not detailed as to specific strategies and did not include the practice of the plan or

specific techniques. As a whole, the programs did not spend an adequate amount of time

developing and practicing risk and relapse prevention plans and techniques. To increase their use

in the group sessions the following recommendations are made.

• Risk plans and relapse prevention techniques should outline specific strategies to effectively deal with the individual inmate’s risk factors.

• Participants should be given an opportunity to rehearse their plans and techniques in role plays specific to their risk factors. Programs implementing a cognitive-behavioral model also include the use of

reinforcement and punishment. The majority of programs made little use of reinforcers and

punishers to promote prosocial behavior. Those programs that had identified appropriate rewards

and/or punishers often did not apply them in an effective manner. For example, reinforcers or

punishers were not applied consistently across facilitators and settings, or they were applied without explanation to the participant why they received the reinforcer or punisher, or they were applied to the entire group when only one or two members performed the behavior. To increase the use of effective reinforcement and punishment across the PADOC programs evaluated the following recommendation are made.

• The number of reinforcers used by the programs should be increased. One way to increase the quantity of reinforcers is to develop a structured reinforcement system so that prosocial behavior exhibited by group participants can be identified and reinforced by facilitators. The reinforcement schedule can be incorporated into a point system that is connected to termination from group. Other examples of effective reinforcers include: specific praise; feedback on performance; group recognition; extra privileges, such as TV, time spent out of cell; badges, ribbons and certifications; going outside; extra shower; playing host for visitors; or a job in a special setting.

• All group facilitators should follow guidelines around the effective use of reinforcement and punishment to accelerate prosocial and decelerate antisocial behaviors (see Spiegler and Guevremont for a review). We recommend that the program follow a sound behavioral approach when reinforcing and punishing behaviors: o Effective reinforcers should: 1) occur immediately following the prosocial behavior; 2) vary in terms of type; 3) be applied consistently until the behavior is

well developed and then intermittently; 4) be desired by the recipient; 5) be individualized; 6) be administered consistently by staff; and 7) outweigh the frequency of punishers. o For consequences to achieve maximum effectiveness, they should be administered in the following manner: 1) escape from the consequence should be impossible; 2) the consequence should be administered at the earliest point in the deviant response; 3) it should be administered immediately and after every occurrence of the deviant response; 4) alternative prosocial behaviors should be rewarded after punishment is administered; and 5) there should be variation in the consequences used. o Likewise, for punishers to be effective, they should be contingent upon the inappropriate (antisocial) behavior, which is why group punishers are largely ineffective. Examples of effective punishers include loss of privileges, extra assignment, structured free time, or loss of a reinforcer. o All staff should be trained to look for the negative consequences of punishment (e.g., emotional reactions, avoidance, aggression, perpetuation effects, etc.) so that there are not unintended side effects from punishing.

Finally, it is important that the inmates are involved in treatment for a sufficient amount

of time to affect behavior change. While the groups were of sufficient length, it is necessary that

the group session length be dictated by the curriculum being used to ensure that there is ample

time to cover the material for that session. Throughout the programs assessed it was commonly

observed that most failed to begin and end group on time. As noted previously in the report, this

seemed to be a systemic issue related to the movement of inmates throughout the prison.

• As such, PADOC should have the group start and stop time include enough time for inmates to move to and from group. At a minimum changes should be made to make it a priority to get offenders to treatment at all institutions. Related to this concern, is the involvement of sex offenders with treatment activities within

the Therapeutic Community programs. Specifically, these program participants should be involved in therapeutic tasks forty to seventy percent of the time.

• PADOC and Sex offense specific TCs should consider the schedule of the participants and increase the amount of time spent in treatment related tasks. These tasks can include group, group homework, school, work, or other therapeutic activities.

Finally, increased structure around the use of completion criteria is needed to improve

services. Currently, completion of Thinking for a Change, Batterer’s Intervention, and Violence

Prevention programs is time driven. If an offender attends each session and completes his/her homework, s/he is considered to have completed the program. There is no assessment to determine progress in acquiring prosocial behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs while in the program.

Similarly, some sex offense specific programs attempt to use formal completion criteria related to performance measures regarding attitudes, behaviors, and content knowledge; however, not all programs or all facilitators consistently used such formal criteria. As such, PADOC should develop more formal completion criteria across programs.

• Specifically the objective assessment of the acquisition of prosocial skills and attitudes prior to determination of discharge should occur for all programs. These can be assessed using a behavioral assessment, a checklist of behavioral/attitudinal criteria, completion of detailed treatment plans or the demonstration of the acquisition of new skills or behaviors while in the group.

• Similarly, this acquisition of skills, attitudes, and knowledge should be reflected on the discharge summary of each inmate. The Correctional Plan Evaluation form should be structured so that details can be provided regarding participation, and skills and attitudes acquired. Additionally, specific recommendations for further treatment or areas of concern should be more consistently noted with explanations why. In conclusion, while the program evaluation results identified many areas that need

improvement across the system, there were also several recognized strengths that will help build

capacity for effective programming and service delivery within the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections risk reduction and sex offense specific programming.

APPENDIX A

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is Predictable and Can Be Influenced: Using Risk Assessments to Reduce Recidivism. Forum on Correctional Research, 1(2), 11-17.

Andrews, D.A. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical Principles. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Psychology, Carleton University

Andrews, D., and J. Bonta (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati: Anderson.

Andrews, D. A., J. Bonta and R. Hoge (1990). Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(l), 19-52.

Andrews, D. and J. Kiessling (1980). Program Structure and Effective Correctional Practices: A Summary of CaVIC Research, In R. Ross and P. Gendreau (Eds.). Effective Correctional Treatment, pp. 441-463. Toronto: Butterworth.

Andrews, D. A. and R. R. Ress (1979). Effective Correctional Treatment: Bibliography for Cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489

Andrews, D., I. Zinger, R, Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F. Cullen. (1990). Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta- Analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404.

Anglin, M. and Y. Hser (1990). Treatment of Drug Abuse, in M. Tonry and J. Wilson (Eds.). Drugs and Crime, pp. 393-460. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Aos, S., P. Phipps, R. Barnoski, and R. Lieb. (1999). The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime: A Review of National Research Findings with Implications for Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Applegate, B. K., F. T. Cullen, and B. S. Fisher (1997) Public Support for Correctional Treatment: The Continuing Appeal of the Rehabilitative Ideal. The Prison Journal, 77, 237-258.

Applegate, B.K., F.T. Cullen, M.G. Turner, and J.L. Sundt. (1996). Assessing Public Support for Three- Strikesand –You’re Out Laws: Global versus Specific Attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 517-534.

*Armstrong, T.L. and D.M. Altschuler. (1998). Recent Developments in Juvenile Aftercare: Assessment, Findings and Promising Programs. Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Services, 2nd Edition, 448-472.

*Ashford, J.B., and C.W. LeCroy. (1988). Predicting Recidivism: An Evaluation of the Wisconsin Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Risk Instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(2), 141-151.

*Ashford, J.B., and C.W. LeCroy. (1990). Juvenile Recidivism: A Comparison of Three Prediction Instruments. Adolescence, 25 (98), 434-450.

Auerbach, B. J., and T. C. Castellano (1998). Successful Community Sanctions and Services for Special Offenders. Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the International Community Corrections Association. Lantham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Baird, C (1991). Validating Risk Assessment Instruments Used in Community Corrections. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Benda, B.B. (1989). Predicting Return to Prison Among Adolescent Males: A Comparison of Three Statistics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 487-500.

Blankenship, J., D.F. Dansereau, and D.D. Simpson. (1999). Cognitive Enhancements of Readiness for Corrections-Based Treatment for Drug Abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 431- 445.

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-Needs Assessment and Treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 18-32.

Bonta, J., K. Hanson, and M. Law. (1998). The Prediction of Criminal and Violent Recidivism Among Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 123- 142.

Boone, H.N. and B. Fulton. (1996). Implementing Performance-Based Measures in Community Corrections. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Borduin, C., S. Henggeler, D. Blaske, and R. Stein (1990) Multisystemic Treatment of Adolescent Sexual Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-113.

Brandt, J.R., W.A. Kennedy, C.J. Patrick, and J.J. Curtin. (1997). Assessment of Psychopathy in a Population of Incarcerated Adolescent Offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9(4), 429-435.

Braswell, M., D. Lester- and P. Van Voorhis (1991).Correctional Counseling. Cincinnati: Anderson.

*Brown, W.K., T.P. Miller, R.L. Jenkins, and W.A. Rhodes. (1989). The Effect of Early Juvenile Court Adjudication on Adult Outcome. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 33(3), 177-183.

Byrne, J.M. (1989). Reintegrating the Concept of Community into Community-Based Corrections. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 471-499.

Clear, T.R. and E.J. Latessa. (1993). Probation Officers’ Roles in Intensive Supervision: Surveillance Versus Treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10(3), 441-462.

Council on Crime in America (1996).The State of Violent Crime in .America. Washington, DC: Author

Crowe, A. H. (1998). Restorative Justice and Offender Rehabilitation: A Meeting of the Minds. Perspectives, 3, 28-40.

Cullen, F. T. (1995). Assessing the Penal Harm Movement. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 338-358.

Cullen, F. T. and B.K. Applegate. (1997). Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correctional Intervention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

Cullen, F. T. and P. Gendreau (1989). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: Reconsidering the Nothing Works Debate. In L. Goodstein and D. MacKenzie (Eds.) American Prisons: Issues in Research and Policy, (pp.23-44), New York: Plenum.

Cullen, F. T. and K. Gilbert. (1982). Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Cullen, F.T., E. J. Latessa, V. S. Burton and L. Lombardo (1993). The Correctional Orientation of Prison Wardens: Is the Rehabilitative Ideal Supported? Criminology, 31(1).

Cullen, F., S. Skovron, J. Scott and V. Burton (1989). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: Reconsidering the ‘Nothing Works’ Debate, in L. Goodstein and D. Mackenzie (Eds.). The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy, pp. 23-24. New York: Plenum.

Cullen, F. T. and J. P. Wright (1996) The Future of Corrections. In B. Maguire and P. Radosh (Eds.), The Past, Present, and Future of American Criminal Justice. New York: General Hall, pp. 198-219.

Cullen, F. T., J. P. Wright, S. Brown, M. M. Moon, M. B. Blankenship, and B. K. Applegate (1998). Public Support for Early Intervention Programs: Implications for a Progressive Policy Agenda. Crime and Delinquency, 44:187-204.

Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P, and Applegate, B.K. (1996). Control in the Community: The Limits of Reform? ' In A. T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 69-116.

Currie, E. (1985).Confronting Crime- An American Challenge. New York: Pantheon.

Currie, E. (1998).Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Metropolitan.

*Dembo, R., L. Williams, and J. Scheidler (1993). Gender Differences in Mental Health Service Needs Among Youths Entering A Juvenile Detention Center. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 12(2), 73-101.

DiIulio, J.J.Jr., and A.M. Piehl (1991). Does Prison Pay? The Brookings Review, 9, 28-35.

Dowden, C. and D.A. Andrews. (1999). What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 438-452.

*Farrington D. P. (1994) Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 4, 209-227.

Feder, L. and Dugan, L. (2002). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19 (2) 343-375.

Finckenauer, J.0. (1982). Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Flanagan, T. J. and D. R. Longmire, eds. (1996). Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chapters 1, 5, and 6.

Fulton, B., E.J. Latessa, A. Stichman, and L.F. Travis. (1997). The State of ISP: Research and Policy Implications. Federal Probation, 61(4): 65-75.

Fulton, B., A. Stichman, L. Travis, and E. Latessa (1997). Moderation Probation and Parole Officer Attitudes To Achieve Desired Outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77, 295-312.

Furby, L., M. Weinrott and L. Blackshaw (1989). Sex Offender Recidivism: A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3-30.

Garrett, C. (1985). Effects of Residential Treatment on Adjudicated Delinquents: A Meta analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(4), 287-308.

Gendreau, P. (1995). What Works in Community Corrections: Promising Approaches in Reducing Criminal Behavior. IARCA Journal, 6, 5-12.

Gendreau, P. and D. Andrews (1990) Tertiary Prevention: What the Meta-Analysis of the Offender Treatment Literature Tells us About What Works. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.

Gendreau, P., F. Cullen, and J. Bonta (1994). Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision: The Next Generation in Community Corrections? Federal Probation, 58(l), 72-78.

Gendreau, P., and C. Goggin. (1991). Evaluation of Correctional Service of Canada Substance Abuse Programs. Research and Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada. Research Report No. 16.

Gendreau, P. and C. Goggin (1996). Correctional Treatment: Accomplishments and Realities, In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, M., and D. Lester, (1996). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation, 3rd Edition, Cincinnati: Anderson, pp. 271-280.

Gendreau, P., C. Goggin, F. T. Cullen, and D. A. Andrews (200). The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidivism. Forum, 12(2):10-13.

Gendreau, P., C. Goggin, and M. Paparozzi. (1996). ‘Up to Speed’- Principles of Effective Assessment for Community Corrections. Federal Probation, 60(3), 64-70.

Gendreau, P. and M. Paparozzi. (1995). Examining What Works in Community Corrections. Corrections Today, 28-30.

Gendreau, P., M. Paparozzi, T. Little, and M. Goddard. (1993). Does “Punishing Smarter” Work? An Assessment of the New Generation of Alternative Sanctions in Probation. Forum, 5(3), 31-34.

Gendreau, P., and R. R. Ross (1987). Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3), 349-407.

*Gibbs, J., Potter, G., & Goldstein, A. (1995). The Equip Program: Teaching Youth to Think and Act Responsibly Through a Peer-Helping Approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldcamp, J. (1994). Miami's Treatment Drug Court for Felony Misdemeanants. The Prison Journal, 73, 110-166.

Goldstein, A., B. Glick, M. Irwin, C. Pask-McCartney and I. Rubama (1989). Reducing Delinquency: Intervention in the Community. New York: Pergamon Press.

Gordon, D. (1990). The Justice Juggernaut: Fighting Street Crime, Controlling Citizens. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, University Press.

*Gordon, D. J. Arbuthnot, K. Gustafson, and P. McGreen. (1988). Home-Based Behavioral- Systems Family Therapy with Disadvantaged * Delinquents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 243-255.

Gottfredson, S.D. and D.M. Gottfredson (1994). Behavioral Prediction and the Problem of Incapacitation. Criminology, 32, 441-474.

Gottfredson, M., S. M. Herzfeld and T. Flannagan (1982).Another Look at the Effectiveness of Parole Supervision. Journal of Research In Crime and Delinquency, 18, 277-298.

Gottfredson, D. and M. Tonry (1987). Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-52, 151-182, 201-336.

*Greenwood, P. (1992). Substance Abuse Problems Among High Risk Youth and Potential Interventions. Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 444-458.

Greenwood, P. W., K. E. Model, C. R. Rydell, and J. Chiesa (1996). Diverting Children from a Life in Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

*Greenwood, P. and F. Zimrinq (1985). One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Griffith, J.D., M.L. Hiller, K. Knight and D.D. Simpson. (1999). A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment and Risk Classification. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 352-368.

Grubin, D. and D. Thornton. (1994). A National Program for the Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders in the English Prison System. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(1), 55-71.

Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sexual Offender Recidivism Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Treatment Studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 802-809.

Hanson, R.K. and M.T. Bussiere. (1998). Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362.

Hare, R. (1996). Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(l), 25-54.

Harland, A. T. (1996) Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, P.M. (1994). Client Management Classification and Prediction of Probation Outcome. Crime and Delinquency, 40(2), 154-174.

Hasin, D., K. Trautman, and J. Endicott. (1998). Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders: Phenomenologically Based Diagnosis in Patients Who Abuse Alcohol or Drugs. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 34(1), 3-8.

*Henggeler, S. (1997). Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: the MST Approach. Washington, DC: OJJDP, U.S. Department of Justice.

Henning, K. and C. Frueh. (1996). Cognitive Behavioral Treatment of Incarcerated Offenders: An Evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections' Cognitive Self-Change Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(4), 523-541.

Hess, A. (1988) Special Issue: Correctional Classification Based Upon Psychological Characteristics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15 (1).

Hiller, M.L., K. Knight, and D.D. Simpson. (1999). Risk Factors that Predict Dropout from Corrections-Based Treatment for Drug Abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 411-430.

Hoffman, P. (1994). Twenty Years of Operational Use of a Risk Prediction Instrument. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.

Hoffman, P. and J.L. Beck (1980). Revalidating the Salient Factor Score: A Research Note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8, 185-188.

*Hoge, R. (1999). An Expanded Role for Psychological Assessments in Juvenile Justice Systems. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 251-266.

*Hoge, R. Standardized Instruments for Assessing Risk and Need in Youthful Offenders. Ottawa, ONT: Department of Psychology, Carlton University.

*Hoge, R. and D. Andrews (1996). Assessing the Youthful Offender: Issues and Techniques. New York, NY: Plenum.

Holsinger, A. (1999). Assessing Criminal Thinking: Attitudes and Orientations Influence Behavior. Corrections Today, 22-25.

Holt, N. (1997). A New Risk Assessment Model for Parolees: Combining Risk and Stakes. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections.

Howard, N. and R. Caslin. (1999). Not a Laughing Matter: Cognitive Training, Not Excuses is Needed for Sex Offenders. Corrections Today, 33-37.

*Howell, J. C., B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, and J. J. Wilson, eds. (1995) Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hughes, R. (1987). Fatal Shore. New York: Knopf

Inciardi, J., D. McBride, and J. Rivers. (1996). Drug Control and the Courts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jackson, S., L.Feder, D.Forde, R. Davis, C. Maxwell, and B. Taylor (2003). Batterer’s Intervention Programs: Where do we go from here? National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.

Jenson, T. (1998). Examining the Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Mankato, MN.

Jones, D. A., S. Johnson, E. J. Latessa, and L. F. Travis (1999). Case Classification in Community Corrections: Preliminary Findings from a National Survey. Topics in Community Corrections, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Jones, P. (1996). Risk Prediction in Criminal Justice. In A. T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 33-68.

Kennedy, S. (200). Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment Effectiveness. Forum, 12(2):19-23. 48-51.

Kennedy, S. (1999). Responsivity: The Other Classification Principle. Corrections Today, 48- 51.

Kennedy, S. and R. Serin. (1997). Treatment Responsivity: Contributing to Effective Correctional Programming. ICCA Journal, 46-52.

Kirkpatrick, B. (1998). Field Test of the LSI-R: A Study of Offenders Under Intensive Community Supervision. Perspectives, 24-28.

Knight, K., D.D. Simpson, and M.L. Hiller. (1999). Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 337-351.

Knight, R.A., R.A. Prentky, and D.D. Cerce. (1994). The Development, Reliability, and Validity of an Inventory for the Multidimensional Assessment of Sex and Aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(1), 72-94.

*Kobrin, S. and M. Klein (1983). The Community Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: The DSO Experiments. Newbury Park: Sage.

Kohlberg, L. (1980). Moral States and Moralization, In T. Likona (Ed.). Theoretical Perspectives on Moral Development. New York/ NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 31-53.

Land, K.C., P.L. McCall, and K.F. Parker. (1994). Logistic Versus Hazards Regression Analyses in Evaluation Research: An Exposition and Application to the North Carolina Court Counselors’ Intensive Protective Supervision Project. Evaluation Review, 18(4), 411-437.

Langworthy, R., and E. J. Latessa (1993). Treatment of Chronic Drunk Drivers: The Turning Point Project. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(3).

Langworthy, R. and E. Latessa (1996). Treatment of Chronic Drunk Drivers: A Four-Year Follow-Up of the Turning Point Project. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 273-281.

Latessa, E. J. (1985). Community Corrections as Diversion. In L. F. Travis (Ed.), Probation, Parole and Community Corrections: Emerging Issues. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Latessa, E. J. (1986). The Cost Effectiveness of Intensive Supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70-74.

Latessa, E.J. (1996). Offenders with Mental Illness on Probation. Community-Corrections in America: New Directions and Sounder Investments for Persons with Mental Illness and Co- Disorders. Washington DC. National Institute of Corrections and the National Coalition for Mental and Substance Abuse Health Care in the Justice System.

Latessa, E.J. (1998). A Summary of ICCA’s “What Works with Substance Abusers” Research Conference. The ICCA Journal. (March), 6-8.

Latessa, E. J. (1999). What Works in Correctional Intervention. Southern Illinois University Law Review, 23:415-426.

Latessa, E. J. (1999). Classifying and Assessing Offenders: Understanding the Criminal Mind. Corrections Today, 8, 81.

Latessa, E. J. (1999). What Works Strategic Solutions: International Community Corrections Association Examines Substance Abusers: Substance Abuse. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Latessa, E. J. and H.E. Allen. (1982). Halfway Houses and Parole: A National Assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 153-163.

Latessa, E. J. and H.E. Allen. (1999). Corrections in the Community, 2nd Edition. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Latessa, E. J. and S. Goodman. (1989). Alcoholic Offenders--Intensive Probation Program Shows Promise. Corrections Today, 49(2).

Latessa, E.J. & J. Gordon. (1994). Examining the Factors Related to Success or Failure with Felony Probationers: A Study of Intensive Supervision. In C. B. Fields (Ed.), Community- Based Corrections: Innovative Trends and Specialized Strategies. Garland Press.

Latessa, E.J. and A. Holsinger. (1998). The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Programs: Assessing Outcome and Quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 22-29.

Latessa, E. and M. Moon. A Practitioners Guide to Evaluation Research. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.

Latessa, E. J. and M. M. Moon. (1992). The Effectiveness of Acupuncture in an Outpatient Drug Treatment Program. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 8, 317-331.

Latessa, E. J. and L.F. Travis. (1991). Halfway House or Probation: A Comparison of Alternative Dispositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 1-11.

Latessa, E. J. & L. F. Travis. (1992). Residential Community-Correctional Programs. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart Sentencing. The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Latessa, E. J. and G.F. Vito. (1988). The Effects of Intensive Supervision on Shock Probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 319-330.

Lerner, K., G. Arling, and C. Baird. (1996). Client Management Classification Strategies for Case Supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 254-271.

*Lipsey, M. (1990). Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects. Paper prepared for the Research Synthesis Committee of the Russell Sage Foundation.

*Lipsey, M.W. and J.H. Derzon. (1998). Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research. London: Sage Publications.

*Lipsey, M.W. and D.B. Wilson. (1998). Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research. In R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington (1998), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Logan, C. H. and J. J. DiIulio, Jr. (1992) .Ten Deadly Myths About Crime and Punishment in the U.S. Wisconsin Interest, 1 (1), 21-35.

Logan, C. H. and G.G. Gaes. (1993). Meta-Analysis and the Rehabilitation of Punishment, Justice Quarterly, 10, 245-263.

Loucks, A. and E. Zamble. (1999). Predictors of Recidivism In Serious Female Offenders: Canada Searches for Predictors Common to Both Men and Women. Corrections Today, 26-31.

Lucken, K. (1997). Privatizing Discretion: “Rehabilitating” Treatment in Community Corrections. Crime and Delinquency, 43(3), 243-259.

Lurigio, A. J. (2000). Drug Treatment Availability and Effectiveness: Studies of the General and Criminal Justice Populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27:495-528.

Lurigio, A.J. and J.A. Swartz. (1998). Recidivism Rates of Drug Offenders on Probation. Perspectives, 36-44.

Lowenkamp, C. T. (2003). A Program Level Analysis of the Relationship Between Correctional Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.

Lowenkamp, C. T. and E. J. Latessa (2003). Evaluation of Ohio’s Halfway Houses and Community Based Correctional Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Lowenkamp, C. T. and E. J. Latessa (2005a). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA Programs. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Lowenkamp, C. T. and E. J. Latessa (2005b). Evaluation of Ohio’s Reclaim Funded Programs, Community Correctional Facilities, and DYS Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

MacKenzie, D. (1989). Prison Classification: The Management and Psychological Perspectives, in L. Goodstein and D. MacKenzie (Eds.). The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy. New York: Plenum Press. MacKenzie, D. L. (1994).Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. National Institute of Justice Research Report, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

MacKenzie, D. L. . (1994). Up to Speed Results of a Multisite Study of Boot camp Prisons. Federal Probation, 58(2), 60-66.

MacKenzie, D.L., K. Browning, S.B. Skroban, and D.A. Smith. (1999). The Impact of Probation on The Criminal Activities of Offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(4), 423-453.

MacKenzie, D. and A. Piquero (1994). The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 222-249.

MacKenzie, D. and J. Shaw (1993). The Impact of Shock Incarceration of Technical Violations and New Criminal Activities. Justice Quarterly,10, 463-487.

Maletzky, B. (1991). Treating the Sexual Offender. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Marshall, W. (1996). Assessment, Treatment, and Theorizing about Sex Offenders: Developments of the Past 20 Years and Future Directions. Criminal Justice and Behavior,23(1), 162-199.

Marshall, W.L., and W.D. Pithers. (1994). A Reconsideration of Treatment Outcome With Sex Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(1), 10-27.

Martin, S.S., C.A. Butzin, C.A. Saum, and J.A. Inciardi. (1999). Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: From Prison to Work Release to Aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 294-320.

Martinson, R. (1974). What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform. Public Interest, 25(Spring), 22-25.

Martinson, R. and J. Wilks (1977). Save Parole Supervision. Federal Probation, 42(3), 23-27.

Marvell, T. B. and C.E. Moody Jr. (1994). Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 109-140.

McLellan, A.T., G.E. Woody, L. Luborsky, C.P. O’Brien, and K.A. Druley. (1983). Increased Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Treatment: A Prospective Study of Patient-Treatment “Matching”. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171(10), 597-605.

McGaha, J., M. Fichter and P. Hirschburg (1987). Felony Probation: A Re-Examination of Public Risk. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 1-9.

McGrath, R. J. (1991). Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Disposition Planning: A Review of Empirical and Clinical Findings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35(4), 329-350.

McGrath, R. (1995). Sex Offender Treatment: Does it Work? American Probation and Parole Association Perspectives, 19, 24-26.

Moffitt, T.E. (1983). The Learning Theory Model of Punishment: Implications for Delinquency Deterrence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(2), 131-158.

Monahan and H. Steadman (Eds.) Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-17.

*Moon, M. M., B.K. Applegate, and E. J. Latessa. (1997). RECLAIM Ohio: A Politically Viable Alternative to Treating Youthful Felony Offenders, Crime and Delinquency, (43), 438- 456.

Moon, M. and E. J. Latessa. (1994). Drug Treatment in Adult Probation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 217-226.

*Moon, M. M., J.L Sundt, F. T. Cullen, and J.P. Wright. (2000). Is Child Saving Dead? Public Support for Juvenile Rehabilitation. Crime and Delinquency, 46(1), 38-60.

Morash, M., R. Harr, and L. Rucker (1991).A Comparison of Programming from Women and Men in U.S. Prisons in the 1980s.Crime and Delinquency, 40(2), 197-221.

*Murray, C. and L. Cox (1979). Beyond Probation: Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent. Beverly Hills: Sage.

*Palmer, T. (1974). The Youth Authority's Community Treatment Project. Federal Probation, 38(l), 3-13.

Palmer. T. (1975). Martinson Revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 133-152.

Palmer, T. (1976). Martinson Revisited. Rehabilitation, Recidivism, and Research. National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp. 41-62.

Palmer, T. (1991). The Effectiveness of Intervention: Recent Trends and Current Issues. Crime and Delinquency, 37, 330-346.

Palmer, T. (1992). The Re-Emergence of Correctional Intervention. Newbury Park: Sage.

Palmer, T. (1994). A Profile of Correctional Effectiveness and New Directions for Research. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and Nonprogrammatic Aspects of Successful Intervention: New Directions For Research. Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 100-131.

Paternoster, R. (1987). The Deterrent Effect of The Perceived Certainty and Severity of Punishment: A Review of the Evidence and Issues. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173-217.

Patterson, G., R. Chamberlain, and J. Reid. (1982). A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Parent Training Program. Behavioral Therapy, 13, 638-650.

Pearson, F.S. and D.S. Lipton. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 384-410. Peters, R.H. (1993). Drug Treatment in Jails and Detention Settings. Drug Treatment and Criminal Justice, 44-80.

Peters, R.H. and M.G. Bartoi. (1997). Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System. Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida

Peters, R.H., P.E. Greenbaum, J.F. Edens, C.R. Carter, and M.M. Ortiz. (1998). Prevalence of DSM-IV Substance Abuse and Dependence Disorders Among Prison Inmates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(4), 573-587.

Peters, R.H. and H.A. Hills. (1997). Intervention Strategies for Offenders with Co-Occurring Disorders: What Works? Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida.

Peters, R.H., and M.R. Murrin. (2000). Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing Criminal Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 72-96.

Peters, R.H. and E. Peyton. (1998). Guidelines for Drug Courts on Screening and Assessment. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice.

Peters, R.H., and M.L. Steinberg. (2000). Substance Abuse Treatment in U.S. Prisons. Drugs and Prisons, 89-116.

Peters, R.H., A.L. Strozier, M.R. Murrin, and W.D. Kearns. (1997). Treatment of Substance- Abusing Jail Inmates: Examination of Gender Differences. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(4), 339-349.

Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation and Felony Offenders. Federal Probation, 49(2), 4-9.

Petersilia, J. (1992). California's Prison Policy: Causes, Costs, and Consequences. The Prison Journal72, 8-36.

Petersilia, J. (1997). Probation in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 22 (149-200), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Petersilia, J. (ed.) (1998). Community Corrections: Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Petersilia, J. and S. Turner (1993). Intensive Probation and Parole. In M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 281-336.

*Phillips, E., E. Phillips, D. Fixsen, and M. Wolf. Achievement Place Behavior Shaping Works for Delinquents. Psychology Today Magazine, 6, 75-79.

Piehl, A. M. and J.J. DiIulio Jr. (1995). 'Does Prison Pay?' Revisited. The Brookings Review, 13 (Winter), 21-25.

Pollock, J. (1998). Counseling Women in Prison. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pratt, Travis, A. Holsinger, and E.J. Latessa (forthcoming) Treating the Chronic DUI Offender: ‘Turning Point’ Ten Years Later. Journal of Criminal Justice.

Prendergast, M.L., M.D. Anglin, and J. Wellisch. (1995). Treatment for Drug Abusing Offenders Under Community Supervision. Federal Probation, 59, 66-75.

Prentky, R.A., R.A. Knight, and A.F.S. Lee. (1997). Risk Factors Associated with Recidivism Among Extra-familial Child Molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 141-149.

Project Match Research Group. (1997). Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity: Project MATCH Post treatment Drinking Outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 7-29.

Quay, H.C. (1977). The Three Faces of Evaluation: What Can be Expected to Work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4(4), 341-355.

*Redding, R.E. (1999). Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Adult Prison: Legal, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1-20.

*Redondo, S., J. Sanchez-Meca and V. Garrido. (1999). The Influence of Treatment Programmes on the Recidivism of Juvenile and Adult Offenders: A European Meta-Analytic Review. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 251-278.

Richards, S.C. and R.S. Jones. (1997). Perpetual Incarceration Machine: Structural Impediments to Post-prison Success. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(1), 4-22.

Roberts, J. V. and L. J. Stalans. (1997). Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview. Chapters 1 and 10.

Robinson, D. (1995). The Impact of Cognitive Skills Training on Post-Release Recidivism among Canadian Federal Offenders. Ottawa, CA: Research Division, Correctional Research and Development. Report No. R-41.

Robinson, P.H. (1995). Moral Credibility and Crime. The Atlantic Monthly, 72-78.

*Ross, R. and E. Fabiano (1985). Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation, Ottawa, Ontario: Air Training and Publications.

Samenow, S. (1984).Inside the Criminal Mind. New York: Times Books.

Sanders, J.F., K.F. McNeill, B.M. Rienzi, and T.B. DeLouth. (1997). The Incarcerated Female Felon and Substance Abuse: Demographics, Needs Assessment, and Program Planning for a Neglected Population. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 18, 41-51.

*Schwartz, C.M. and T. Campbell. (1995). Juvenile Violence Prevention: The Evaluation of a Comprehensive, Cognitive-Behavioral Program. Journal of Applied Sociology, 13(1), 77-102.

Sechrest, L., S. White and E. Brown (1979). The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Sherman, L.W. (1993). Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473

Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway. (1998). Preventing Crime: What Works, What doesn’t, What’s Promising. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.

Shichor, D. and D.K. Sechrest,(eds). (1996). Three Strikes and You're Out: Vengeance as Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sieh, E. (1993). From Augustus to the Progressives: A Study of Probation's Formative Years. Federal Probation, 57(3), 67-72.

Simourd, D.J. (1996). Criminal Attitudes: The Silent Partner in Crime. Kingston, ONT: Department of Psychology, Collins Bay Institution.

*Simourd, L. and D.A. Andrews. Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences. Ottawa, ONT: Department of Psychology, Carleton University.

Simpson, D. and P. Flynn (2007). Moving innovations into treatment: A stage-based approach to program change. Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment, September, 33(2), 111-120

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Schwartz, K. (2009). “Validating the Principles of Effective Intervention: A Systematic Review of the Contributions of Meta-Analysis in the Field of Corrections.” Victims and Offenders, 4, 1556-4886.

Smykla, J.0. (1986). Critique Concerning Prediction in Probation and Parole: Some Alternative Suggestions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,30-31, 127.

Smykla, J. and W. Selke (Eds.) (1995). Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990's. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Spelman, W. (1994). Criminal Incapacitation. New York: Plenum.

Spelman, W. (1995). The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 107-135.

Spiegler, M., and D. Guevremont. (1993). Contemporary Behavior Therapy. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole.

Stinchcomb, J.B. (1999). Recovering from the Shocking Reality of Shock Incarceration-What Correctional Administrators Can Learn from Boot Camp Failures. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 43-52.

Stover, C. S., Meadows, A.L., & Kaufman, J. (2009). Interventions for Intimate Partner Violence: Review and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40 (3), 223-233.

Taxman, F.S. (1998). 12 Steps to Improved Offender Outcomes: Developing Responsive Systems of Care for Substance-Abusing Offenders. Corrections Today, 114-117.

Trembley, R. E. and W. M. Craig (1995). Developmental Crime Prevention. In M. Tonry and D. P. Farrington (eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (Crime and Justice- A Review of Research Series, Volume 19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 151-236.

Turner, M. G., F. T. Cullen, J. L. Sundt, and B. K. Applegate (1997).Public Tolerance for Community-Based Sanctions. The Prison Journal, 77, 6-26.

Turner, S., J. Petersilia and E. P. Deschenes (1992). Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole. Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 539-556.

Van Voorhis, P. (1987). Correctional Effectiveness: The High Cost of Ignoring Success. Federal Probation, 51(l), 56-62.

Van Voorhis, P. (1994). Psychological Classification of the Adult, Male, Prison Inmate. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Van Voorhis, P., M. Braswell, and D. Lester, (1996). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation, 3rd Edition, Cincinnati: Anderson.

Van Voorhis, P. and K. Brown. (1996). Risk Classification in the 1990’s. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Van Voorhis, P., F.T. Cullen, and B. Applegate. (1995). Evaluating Interventions with Violent Offenders: A Guide for Practitioners and Policymakers. Federal Probation, 59, 17-28.

Van Voorhis, P. and K. Sperber. (1999). When Programs “Don’t Work” With Everyone: Planning for Differences Among Correctional Clients. Corrections Today, 38-42

Visher, C. A. (1987). Incapacitation and Crime Control: Does a 'Lock 'Em Up' Strategy Reduce Crime? Justice Quarterly, 4, 513-543.

Vito, G.F. (1984). Development in Shock Probation: A Review of Research Findings and Policy Implications. Federal Probation, 48(2), 2-9-27.

Vito, G. F. (1986). Felony Probation and Recidivism: Replication and Response. Federal Probation,50(4), 17-25.

Wanberg, K. and H. Milkman. (1998). Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change-The Provider's Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Warren, M. Q. (1971). Classification of Offenders as an Aid to Efficient Management and Effective Treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62(1), 239- 268.

Warren, M. (1983). Applications of Interpersonal Maturity Level Theory to Offender Populations, in W. Lauffer and J. Day (Eds.) .Personality Theory, Moral Development, and Criminal Behavior, pp. 23-50. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Webster, C., G. Harris, M. Rice, C. Cormier, and V. Quinsey. (1994). The Violence Prediction Scheme. Toronto: Center of Criminology.

Welsh, B.C. and D.P. Farrington. (2000). Correctional Intervention Programs and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 115-133.

Wexler, H.K., G. Melnick, L. Lowe, and J. Peters. (1999). Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community and Aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 321-336.

*Whitehead J. and S. Lab (1989). A Meta-analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3), 276-295.

Wilson, D.B., C.A. Gallagher, M.B. Coggeshall, and D.L. MacKenzie. (1999). A Quantitative Review and Description of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 8-18.

*Wooldredge, J. (1988). Differentiating the Effects of Juvenile Court Sentences on Eliminating Recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 264-300.

*Wooldredge, J., J. Hartman, E. Latessa, and S. Holmes. (1994). Effectiveness of Culturally- specific Community Treatment for African-American Juvenile Felons. Crime and Delinquency, 40(4).

Wright, K., T. Clear, and P. Dickson. (1984). Universal Application of Probation Risk- assessment Instruments: A Critique. Criminology, 22(l), 113-134.

*Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.

*Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and Delinquency. The Future of Children, 5(3), 51-75.

Zambic, E. (1993). Expanding the Recidivism Inquiry: A Look at Dynamic Factors. Forum on Correctional Research, 5, 27-30.

Zedlewski, E. W. (1987). Making Confinement Decisions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Zimring, F. E. and G. Hawkins. (1988). The New Mathematics of Imprisonment. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 425-436.

Zimring, F. E. and G. Hawkins (1995) Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

* Reference pertains to juvenile offender population

APPENDIX B Pennsylvania Project Staff Survey

* This survey should be completed by all institutional staff members that have direct contact with inmates.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. There is no right or wrong answer. All responses are anonymous and confidential and no individual responses will be reproduced in any reports. Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.

Name of the institution:

Date:

How long have you worked at this institution: YRS MOS

What best describes your current position:

___ Custody or security staff

Treatment/programming staff

Education staff

____ Administrative or support staff

____ Other, please specify

PLEASE RATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE RESPONSE THAT MOST ACCURATELY DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION:

1. How supportive is the prison administration of programming at this institution? 1 2 3 4 5

Unsupportive Little support Neutral Supportive Very supportive

2. How supportive is treatment staff of programming at this institution? 1 2 3 4 5

Unsupportive Little support Neutral Supportive Very supportive

3. How supportive is security/custody staff of programming at the institution? 1 2 3 4 5

Unsupportive Little support Neutral Supportive Very supportive

4. This prison environment is conducive to programming for inmates? 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. Programs in this institution are well-organized/well run. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. Inmates that participate in programming at this institution benefit from the treatment. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. Programming is important for inmates. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. Programming helps to maintain order in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. Inmates are safe in this institution. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. Inmate behavior is well-managed in this institution. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. Offenders can change. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. Overall, this is a good institution for providing inmate programming. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

When interacting with inmates, how important is it for staff to demonstrate the following characteristics…

13. Caring 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

14. Empathetic 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

15. Strict 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

16. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

17. Authoritative 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

18. Fair 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

19. Firm 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

20. Consistent 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

21. Confrontational 1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant Somewhat Unsure Important Very Important Unimportant

For each statement, circle the number on the scale from 1-6 to indicate which term most closely describes your perception of correctional officer roles and attitudes at this institution.

22. A primary role of a correctional officer at this institution is to: Enforce rules Rehabilitate and policies the offender 1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Correctional officers use sanctions primarily to: Reform the Punish the offender offender 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. The relationship correctional officers have with inmates is best described as: Showing

Impartial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Concern

25. To change inmate behavior, correctional officers are most likely to use:

Reinforcement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Punishment

26. Correctional officers’ style of communication with inmates is best described as:

Negotiation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coercion

27. The most important skill for correctional officers to have is: Ability to Ability to Enforce Counsel 1 2 3 4 5 6

28. The primary purpose of monitoring inmate activities is to: Ensure Promote Compliance Change 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Correctional officers’ attitude toward inmates placed in this institution is:

Hopeful 1 2 3 4 5 6 Skeptical

30. The correctional officers’ role with inmates is best described as:

Boss 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coach

How VALUABLE would you rate the following programs at this institution?

31. Sex Offender Programming 1 2 3 4 5 6

Of No Value Of Little Value Valuable Highly Unsure Not Applicable Valuable

32. Violence Prevention Program 1 2 3 4 5 6

Of No Value Of Little Value Valuable Highly Unsure Not Applicable Valuable

33. Batterers Intervention Program 1 2 3 4 5 6

Of No Value Of Little Value Valuable Highly Unsure Not Applicable Valuable

34. Cognitive-Behavioral Programming (e.g., Thinking for a Change) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Of No Value Of Little Value Valuable Highly Unsure Not Applicable Valuable

35. Please list any additional comments you have:

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY!

APPENDIX C

Program Evaluation Results by Institution SCI-Albion Batterers’ Intervention CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.7% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 56.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirement of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and also have at least 2 years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group treatment. • The length of group (e.g., 6 to 8 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • The groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or by meeting with clients individually. • During group treatment the facilitators appear to respond appropriately to noncompliance, such as group members not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • The groups appear to appropriately target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Group participants are required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The current program manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon those who volunteered for the job, rather than group facilitation experience and skills. 87

• Treatment specialists meet only one time per month to review client progress • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery are inadequate. • The current curriculum is not supported by the research as an evidence based approach. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this appears to be primarily related to security and movement issues. • While treatment specialists appear to have a good rapport with participants in general, they should work to ensure that each client actively participates in every group • The group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 17 participants. • The curriculum is designed to be co-facilitated; however, this is not consistently done. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • The potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, or providing coping and management techniques for both. • The group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

SCI-Albion Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 57.1% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 60.9% Effective Overall Score 58.9% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can also be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidence based. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. Participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address both the different learning styles and barriers of participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • In group, the facilitators appear to respond appropriately to participants’ noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

• The current program manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job, rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to security and movement issues. • While treatment specialists appear to have a good rapport with the participants, they should also work to ensure that every client actively participates in each group. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 17 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and to identify high risk situations, or providing coping and management techniques for both. • Thinking for a Change group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

SCI-Albion Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 51.4% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 56.1% Effective Overall Score 55.3% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic, and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles; however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 24 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • In group, the facilitators appear to respond appropriately to non-compliance, such as participants’ not completing their homework or refusing to participate. They are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • The groups appear to appropriately target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Group participants are required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

• Treatment specialists meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to security and movement issues. • While treatment specialists appear to have a good rapport with the participants, they should work to ensure that every client actively participates in each group. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 17 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, or providing coping and management techniques for both. • The Violence Prevention group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

SCI-Albion Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 55.8% Effective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60.5% Effective Overall Content 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Score 58.4% Effective

Strengths: • The program offers several avenues for treatment. It offers a SOP low intensity SNU option (and a Horton group for those with significant needs), an SOP mod/high intensity SNU option, a low intensity non-SNU option, and the therapeutic community for mod/high intensity non-SNU clients. The following summary pertains to the SOP low intensity and high intensity for its SNU populations. • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the psychological services staff. • The program coordinator is involved in the hiring process. They often recruit new hires through their intern program. • The coordinator noted that they select staff based on important personal characteristics and skills related to service delivery. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place inmates in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk through the offering of both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to support its effectiveness. • The high intensity program lasts approximately 18 months and the low intensity program approximately 6- 8 months. • The SOP facilitators appear knowledgeable of the material being taught. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • The staff conducted groups consistently. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in groups to non-compliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or lose points for that particular day. • The staff appear to recognize and appropriately deal with unintended emotional responses to consequences. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators appeared to have good rapport with the offenders.

• SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While homework is regularly assigned, it is not consistently reviewed by the facilitator with feedback provided to participants. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. On average groups start with approximately 14-15 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

Figure 7a: SCI Albion Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Albion 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

20 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs

Figure 7b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Albion Respondents (n=28) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 75.0 75.0 73.2 64.3 61.2 60.7 61.3 60.0 49.2 50.0 Albion

% 40.0 All SCIs 28.6 20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx Staff Survey Question

SCI-Cambridge Springs Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff & Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 65.7% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 68.2% Highly Effective Overall Score 60.7% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • The program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • There is appropriate selection and exclusionary criteria for the program. • Risk factors and criminogenic needs are assessed at Muncy with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Muncy including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Muncy and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the WRAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • The facilitators encourage group participation by asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group. • Homework is given nearly every session and is reviewed. Each person is given points for completing homework. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The duration of the group is approximately 22 weeks (1 x per week for 1.5 hours) which is considered appropriate, • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity by reviewing results prior to group placement, slowing the group pace if necessary, using peers to translate if language is a barrier, or providing individual sessions. • The facilitators respond appropriately to noncompliance and utilize consequences to promote prosocial behavior. Consequences include loss of points, removal from group, or being sent back to the unit. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately by recognizing when punishments produce an emotional reaction. The facilitators will attempt to deescalate situations with clients as well as approach clients who appear withdrawn. Facilitators will contact unit managers or officers on the unit to suggest they be aware of the client’s behavior/mood. • Facilitators model prosocial skills in group and explain the benefits of learning new prosocial skills. • The facilitators utilize role modeling in group and provide corrective feedback. • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, boundaries and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators are engaged in activities related to cognitive restructuring. • Near the end of the curriculum, facilitators develop risk plans and rehearse these plans with clients. • The facilitators utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group. • The facilitators utilize the HIQ and CSS-M as pre-post measures.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The current program manager does not provide clinical supervision. • The program coordinator (unit manager) was not involved in the hiring process for the treatment specialists and is unaware of whether staff were selected based on skills related to service delivery. • The facilitators have less than two years experience working in a treatment capacity with offenders • Formal staff meetings with treatment specialists occur only one time per month. • Although staff were trained on the T4C curriculum, they do not receive sufficient on-going training due to budget cuts. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • The group size normally runs between 10-12 participants. • While the facilitators offer certificates for group completion, they do not have a sufficient number of rewards in place to encourage new skills and prosocial behavior. • While the facilitators do respond to noncompliance with some effective consequences, they are not utilized as effectively as possible. • While the facilitators do utilize modeling and role plays in group, they do not practice skills in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed or evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Completion criteria are not well developed and appear to be driven mostly by the curriculum (e.g., completion of 22 weeks). • The facilitators are not involved in discharge planning.

SCI-Cambridge Springs Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 60.0% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 63.4% Effective Overall Score 57.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • The program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • There is appropriate selection and exclusionary criteria for the program. • Risk factors and criminogenic needs are assessed at Muncy with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Muncy including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Muncy and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the WRAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The Violence Prevention groups appear to target higher risk and higher need clients. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The facilitators utilize manuals in the Violence Prevention groups. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • The facilitators will encourage group participation through asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group. • Homework is given nearly every session and is reviewed. Each person is given points for completing homework. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The duration of the group is approximately 25 weeks (1 x per week for 1.5 hours) which is considered appropriate. • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity by reviewing results prior to group placement, slowing the group pace if necessary, using peers to translate if language is a barrier, or providing individual sessions. • The facilitators respond appropriately to noncompliance and utilize consequences to promote prosocial behavior. Consequences include loss of points, removal from group, or being sent back to the unit. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately by recognizing when punishments produce an emotional reaction. The facilitators will attempt to deescalate situations with clients as well as explore with clients who appear withdrawn. Facilitators will contact unit managers or officers on the unit to suggest they be aware of the client’s behavior/mood. • Facilitators model prosocial skills in group and explain the benefits of learning new prosocial skills • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, establish boundaries, and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators are engaged in activities related to cognitive restructuring.

• Near the end of the curriculum, facilitators develop risk plans and rehearse these plans with clients. • The facilitators utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group. • The facilitators utilize the HIQ and CSS-M as pre-post measures.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • The program coordinator (unit manager) was not involved in the hiring process for the treatment specialists and is unaware of whether staff were selected based on skills related to service delivery. • The facilitators have less than two years experience working in a treatment capacity with offenders. • Formal staff meetings with treatment specialists occur only one time per month. • Although staff were trained on the Violence Prevention curriculum, due to budget cuts they do not receive sufficient on-going training. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • The group size normally runs between 10-12 participants. • While the facilitators offer certificates for group completion, the facilitators do not have a sufficient number of rewards in place to encourage new skills and prosocial behavior. • While the facilitators do respond to noncompliance with some effective consequences, they are not utilized as effectively as they could be. • While the facilitators do utilize modeling in group, they do not practice skills or practice skills in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed or evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Completion criteria are not well developed and appear to be driven mostly by the curriculum (e.g., completion of 25 weeks). • The facilitators are not involved in discharge planning.

100

SCI-Cambridge Springs Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 80.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 50.0% Needs Improvement Treatment 41.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Content 42.1% Ineffective Overall Score 49.1% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place who supervises the psychological services specialists. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession and have worked with offenders in a treatment capacity for at least two years. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • Formal staff meetings with treatment staff occur three to four times per month. • The SOP program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • Risk factors and criminogenic needs are assessed at Muncy with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Muncy including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Muncy and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the RAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The SOP groups appear to target higher risk clients through the use of the LSI-R. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • The facilitators will encourage group participation by asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The group size is normally 8 participants. • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity offering peer mentoring (tutoring) for clients and individual sessions. • The facilitators respond appropriate to noncompliance and utilize consequences to promote prosocial behavior. Consequences include verbal warnings and removal from group. • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, boundaries and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators appear to help participants identify underlying thoughts and values. • In phase 3, facilitators develop risk plans and rehearse these plans with clients. • Group facilitators are observed/evaluated with regard to service delivery skills approximately 7-8 times per year. • The facilitators are involved in discharge planning by completing progress forms in group that are eventually sent to the parole board.

Areas that Need Improvement: • There are no specified selection and exclusionary criteria in place for the groups. • It was not clear that staff were chosen based on skills related to service delivery. • Given that this program is for female sex offenders, the assessment process does not include sex offender specific tools (e.g., Static 99). • Without an assessment process that includes sex offending specific tools, the program is unable to tell whether they are targeting higher need clients.

101

• It was not clear that staff receive sufficient initial training to work with sex offenders. In addition, due to budget cuts staff do not receive sufficient on-going training. • The facilitators do not utilize manuals for the SOP groups. • It was not clear that the SOP groups are based on cognitive behavioral theory. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • Homework is not routinely given throughout all phases of the program . • The duration of the group is considered ongoing. • The facilitators do not consistently responsivity results prior to group placement. • The facilitators do not have a sufficient number of rewards in place to encourage new skills and prosocial behavior. • While the facilitators do respond to noncompliance with some effective consequences, they are not utilized as effectively as they could be. • The facilitators do utilize modeling or role plays in group. In addition, they do not practice skills or practice skills in increasingly difficult situations. • Completion criteria are not well developed. • The facilitators do not utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group. • The facilitators do not utilize any pre- or post-measures.

102

Figure 8a: SCI Cambridge Springs Compared to PADOC

100

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Cambridge Springs 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 TFC VP 0 Overall SOP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

103

Figure 8b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Cambridge Springs Respondents (n=46) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 82.6 84.8 78.1 79.2 80.0 73.9 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 56.5 56.5 Cambridge Springs 50.0 49.2

% All SCIs 40.0

20.0

0.0

104

SCI-Camp Hill Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 40.0% Ineffective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 43.9% Ineffective Overall Score 46.4% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Additionally, group facilitators were selected based upon group facilitation experience and skills. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Batterers’ Intervention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group facilitators consistently encouraged participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size does not exceed the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Both facilitators were actively involved in the group session. • Appropriate rewards and punishers have been identified for use in Batterers’ Intervention group. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitators and group participants. • Rapport between the facilitators and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Batterers’ Intervention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention group does have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

105

• The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend regular staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Batterers’ Intervention group, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter is not considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The Batterers’ Intervention group provides a manual, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter. However, the manual does not seem to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not regularly attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group across facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Matters of noncompliance are not consistently responded to across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed consistently across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not regularly required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Batterers’ Intervention does not devote some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, but participants are not required to practice or rehearse the plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group.

106

SCI-Camp Hill Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 45.7% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 48.7% Needs Improvement Overall Score 48.2% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Additionally, group facilitators were selected based upon group facilitation experience and skills. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for A Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Group facilitators consistently encouraged participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Thinking for a Change manual seems to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Thinking for a Change group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. Additionally, the group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend regular staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum).

107

• While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators do not regularly attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group across facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Matters of noncompliance are not consistently responded to across facilitators. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified; as such, they are not appropriately applied across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not regularly required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Thinking for a Change does not devote any sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

108

SCI-Camp Hill Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 42.9% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 46.3% Needs Improvement Overall Score 47.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Additionally, group facilitators were selected based upon group facilitation experience and skills. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Violence Prevention is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Group facilitators consistently encouraged participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Violence Prevention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Violence Prevention manual seems to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Violence Prevention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Violence Prevention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

109

• While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators do not regularly attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group across facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Matters of noncompliance are not consistently responded to across facilitators. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified; as such, they are not appropriately applied across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not regularly required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Violence Prevention does devote some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans; however, participants are not required to practice these plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

110

SCI-Camp Hill Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 48.9% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 53.8% Effective Overall Score 51.9% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Additionally, group facilitators were selected based upon group facilitation experience and skills. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of the outpatient sex offender program. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the outpatient sex offender programming groups were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R and Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. Furthermore, Medlin: Responsible Living is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Group facilitators consistently encouraged participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • When groups were co-facilitated both facilitators were active. • The groups do not exceed the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The group facilitators have clearly identified appropriate rewards to use in group. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators • Medlin: Responsible Living manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Medlin: Responsible Living manual teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • The outpatient sex offender groups have outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each outpatient sex offender group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

111

• The group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. Additionally, the group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not regularly attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While some facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, not all facilitators receive the training. Additionally, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The Medlin: Responsible Living manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. Additionally, there is no a manual for the Maintenance Group. • Medlin: Responsible Living groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end; however, groups on the block are not facilitated by staff. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur consistently across the groups. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified consistently across facilitators; as such, they are not appropriately applied. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Medlin: Responsible Living manual also devotes the last phase to developing relapse prevention plans; however, these plans are not rehearsed by the participants. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Sex offender groups do not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

112

Figure 9a: SCI Camp Hill Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective Camp Hill 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP 0 TFC VP SOP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

113

Figure 9b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Camp Hill Respondents (n=44) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 75.0 73.2

61.4 61.2 61.3 60.0 56.8 Camp Hill All SCIs 47.7 49.2 47.7 50.0

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

114

SCI-Coal Township Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 36.1% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 42.9% Ineffective Overall Score 42.1% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Batterers’ Intervention are criminogenic. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. Furthermore, both facilitators appeared active during the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Batterers’ Intervention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The group facilitators do not all meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators do not all meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not appear to be selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum).

115

• While some facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula not all have been trained. Additionally, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression based on the HIQ. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Not all facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, and there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the Batterers’ Intervention group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • There are not clearly established boundaries between the all facilitators and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While Batterers’ Intervention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

116

SCI-Coal Township Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 44.4% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 50.0% Needs Improvement Overall Score 47.4% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. • Thinking for a Change is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitators and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Thinking for a Change group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

117

• Group facilitators do not appear to be selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Facilitators do not receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, nor are the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery adequate. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Thinking for a Change manual is consistently followed across group facilitators. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the Thinking for a Change group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Thinking for a Change does not devote sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans or the practice of relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

118

SCI-Coal Township Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 28.6% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 36.6% Ineffective Overall Score 37.5% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • Violence Prevention is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitators and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Violence Prevention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Violence Prevention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • The group facilitators do not all meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators do not all meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years.

119

• Group facilitators do not appear to be selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Facilitators do not receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, nor are the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery adequate. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Group facilitators do not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Violence Prevention manual is not consistently followed across group facilitators. • Violence Prevention groups are not consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the Violence Prevention group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • There are not clearly established boundaries between the all facilitators and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • While Violence Prevention does devote some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans or the practice of relapse prevention plans does not occur. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

120

SCI-Coal Township Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 40.0% Ineffective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 46.2% Needs Improvement Overall Score 48.1% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • Group facilitators were selected based upon group facilitation experience and skills. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the outpatient sex offender programming groups were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R and Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. Furthermore, Medlin: Responsible Living is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encouraged participation by all members of the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • When groups were co-facilitated both facilitator’s were active. • Medlin: Responsible Living groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The group facilitators have clearly identified appropriate rewards to use in group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators • Medlin: Responsible Living manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Medlin: Responsible Living manual teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The outpatient sex offender groups have outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each outpatient sex offender group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • All group facilitators did not complete a staff survey resulting in their not meeting the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years.

121

• The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not regularly attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While some facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, not all facilitators receive the training. Additionally, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Overall support for the facilitation of the outpatient sex offender program is lacking. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Regular assignment of homework, with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Medlin: Responsible Living manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The groups exceed the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators do not consistently attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur consistently across the groups. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified consistently across facilitators; as such they are not appropriately applied. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • There are not clearly established boundaries between all the facilitators and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Medlin: Responsible Living manual also devotes the last phase to developing relapse prevention plans; however, these plans are not rehearsed by the participants. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

122

Figure 10a: SCI Coal Township Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Coal Township 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP 0 TFC VP SOP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs

123

Figure 10b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Coal Township (n=12) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 72.7 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 58.3 Coal Township 49.2

% 41.7 41.7 All SCIs 40.0 33.3

20.0 8.3 0.0

124

SCI-Cresson Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 37.1% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 41.5% Ineffective Overall Score 44.6% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the batterers’ intervention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of batterers’ intervention programming. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Batterers’ intervention targets primarily high risk offenders. • The primary focus of the batterers’ intervention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The batterers’ intervention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport with the group participants and had no apparent issues with inappropriate boundaries. • Batterers’ intervention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group participants are administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator plays a limited role in supervising treatment specialists. • Treatment specialists were not selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation; however, some participants appear inappropriate for the services being offered. • While most offenders in the BIP group where moderate to high need based on the LSI-R and HIQ, this was not true for all participants. • The Duluth program model being used for BIP has been shown to be ineffective at reducing offending behavior. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time.

125

• The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders as the group did not consistently have two group facilitators. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were not consistently addressed. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied. • Facilitators did not consistently respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants were not consistently established and staff did not consistently avoid argumentation with participants. • Participants were not consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts and antisocial thinking and values were not consistently addressed. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Batterers’ intervention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Batterers’ intervention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

126

SCI-Cresson Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 100.0% Highly Effective Treatment 31.4% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 41.5% Ineffective Overall Score 44.6% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Thinking for a Change program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and participants appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the CSS-M. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Thinking for a Change targets primarily high risk offenders and targets moderate-high need offenders based upon the LSI-R and CSS-M. • The primary focus of the Thinking for a Change program is on criminogenic need areas. • Thinking for a Change is an evidence based program model. • The Thinking for a Change facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Groups were consistently conducted by the facilitators. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport with the group participants. • Thinking for a Change sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group participants are administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator plays a limited role in supervising treatment specialists. • Treatment specialists were not selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • Facilitators did not consistently require that all offenders participate in role play. • Group manuals were adopted but not consistently followed. • Homework was not consistently assigned and reviewed for each offender with feedback. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were not consistently addressed. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate.

127

• The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied. • Facilitators did not consistently respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled. • All participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Some inappropriate boundaries were witnessed related to antisocial bonding with offenders and facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation with offenders. • Antisocial attitudes and high risk situations were not consistently addressed. • Participants were not consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts and antisocial thinking and values were not consistently addressed. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups were not regularly observed by supervisors with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Thinking for a Change participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

128

SCI-Cresson Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 31.4% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 39.0% Ineffective Overall Score 42.9% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the violence prevention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of violence prevention programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Violence prevention targets primarily high risk offenders. • The primary focus of the violence prevention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used incorporates many evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral elements. • The violence prevention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport with the group participants. • Violence prevention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group participants are administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each violence prevention participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator plays a limited role in supervising treatment specialists. • Treatment specialists were not selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While most offenders in the VP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ, this was not true for all participants. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • Facilitators did not consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned, but not regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were not consistently addressed. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate.

129

• The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied. • Facilitators did not consistently respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants were not consistently established and staff did not consistently avoid argumentation with participants. • Participants were not consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts and antisocial thinking and values were not consistently addressed. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Violence prevention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Violence prevention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

130

SCI-Cresson Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100.0% Highly Effective Treatment 39.4% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60.0% Effective Overall Content 45.9% Needs Improvement Overall Score 50.0% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There was a program coordinator in place to oversee the groups being offered and to select or approve group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • The group facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • SOP treatment is based upon a cognitive-behavioral model. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Homework is regularly assigned and consistently reviewed by the facilitator with feedback provided to participants. • The length of SOP groups was sufficient to affect the target behavior. • The SOP program uses the Medlin program and the curriculum is consistently followed. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators avoided argumentation and appeared to have good rapport with the offenders. • SOP sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • Risk/relapse prevention plans are developed and rehearsed. • Pre-post testing is used to gauge offender progress on target behaviors. • A discharge summary is written for each SOP group participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator provides limited direct supervision to facilitators and regular staff meetings are not held. • There was no program coordinator in place to select or approve group facilitators at the time of the assessment. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The SOP groups did not consistently start and end on time. • Not all offenders actively participated in the group interventions.

131

• Group norms/expectations were not consistently established and followed • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • While the SOP does offer a group for special needs offenders, the facilitators were not consistent in addressing responsivity issues within the SOP group setting. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • A range of appropriate punishers were not consistently used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change. • Facilitators do not consistently respond appropriately to matters of noncompliance (e.g., group punishers are sometimes used when one person has engaged in an infraction). • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not systematically and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

132

SCI-Cresson Sex Offender Programming—Therapeutic Community

CPC SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Leadership and Development 58.3% Effective Staff Characteristics 63.6% Effective Offender Assessment 84.6% Highly Effective Treatment Characteristics 41.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 33.3% Ineffective Overall Capacity 55.2% Effective Overall Content 55.3% Effective Overall Score 53.3% Effective

Strengths: • The program director is qualified, by way of experience and education. • The program director is actively involved in the selection and supervision of staff and is involved in conducting treatment via the low risk SOP group. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for sex offender therapeutic community. • Funding appears to be adequate to operate the program as designed. • The program staff meets the CPC education and experience requirements. • Regular staff meetings are held to review offender progress in treatment. • Program staff receives clinical supervision by a licensed professional. • Staff have input into the structure of programming and support the goal of offender treatment. • Ethical guidelines are in place for SOP-TC staff. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for program participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R, Static-99, and a dynamic needs assessment. • The program targets primarily higher risk sex offenders and provides more intensive treatment for higher risk offenders. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • While the SOP-TC does use a therapeutic community model, cognitive-behavioral elements are incorporated into programming. • The average length of treatment is approximately 12 months, which is appropriate for the population being served. • The program uses the Medlin Model which is a structured SOP curriculum. • Offenders in the program are involved in therapeutic activity 40-70% of the time. • The program attempts to match staff to the services they are most adept at delivering. • Offenders have input into the structure of the program. • Objective completion criteria is in place and the completion rate falls within an acceptable range (between 65 and 85%). • Groups within the SOP program are monitored by staff. • A discharge summary is completed on each SOP-TC participant upon completion of the program. • The SOP-TC does have an institution-based aftercare component. • All offenders are reassessed on acute and static risk factors for sexual offending.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator does not play an active enough role in training new staff. • The program should regularly consult the literature related to effective interventions with offenders. • Program staff should be evaluated at least annually with a tool that measures service delivery skills, such as group facilitation skills, effective use of authority and appropriate interaction with residents.

133

• While staff originally selected to work at the TC did receive adequate training in the theory and philosophy employed by the program, the training for new staff hired to work at the program is not adequate. • Staff are not required to attend at least 40 hours of ongoing training per year related to service delivery. • With regard to assessment, the program should either assess or access assessment results related to responsivity factors, such as mental health issues, cognitive ability, motivation and personality testing. • The risk assessments being used should be validated on the population being served. • While the program targets a range of criminogenic needs, the density or time spent targeting these needs versus non-criminogenic needs should be increased. • While SOP-TC participants live in a separate housing unit, they are not fully separated from other inmates in the institution. • Program participants are not separated by risk. • Risk, need, and responsivity factors do not guide how offenders are matched to interventions. • The range of reinforcers should be increased, for example, there should be more incentives attached to phase advancement. Likewise, the ratio of reinforcers should outweigh punishers by at least 4:1. • While some types of punishers were appropriate, i.e., community service, others were not, i.e. singing. Furthermore, punishers did not consistently match the level of infraction. • Staff did not systematically monitor for the negative effects from punishers. • While there is some role-play built into the curriculum, the program should offer additional structured skill building opportunities. Likewise, graduated rehearsal should be used to teach residents skills in increasingly difficult situations. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The program has no component for family/significant others. • While there is an aftercare component to the program, the quality of the aftercare services could be improved. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction with the program. • Recidivism rates are not being tracked and there is no evaluator affiliated with the program.

134

Figure 11a: SCI Cresson Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Cresson 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

135

Figure 11b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Cresson (n=72) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 72.2 70.8 70.8 73.2 61.2 61.3 60.0 54.2 Cress on All SCIs 49.2 48.6

% 40.0 26.4 20.0

0.0

136

SCI-Dallas Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 38.9% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 45.2% Ineffective Overall Score 47.4% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

137

• While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was not a consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • There was not consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • Group facilitators did not appear to attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants, nor was there any indication that responsivity assessment results were used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and to identify high-risk situations, or providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

138

SCI-Dallas Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 65.7% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40% Ineffective Overall Content 68.3% Highly Effective Overall Score 60.7% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. • The Thinking for a Change model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups consistently begin and end on time. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

139

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in criminal thinking. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

140

SCI-Dallas Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.3% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40% Ineffective Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 53.6% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, antisocial thinking, and anger. • The Violence Prevention model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • The group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans and participants are required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

141

• The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, this primarily appears to be related to movement issues. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

142

SCI-Dallas Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 75% Highly Effective Treatment 60% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 61.5% Effective Overall Score 59.3% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in sex offender programming were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R, as well as the Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. Furthermore, Medlin: Responsible Living is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups consistently begin and end on time. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • There was consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • The Medlin manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • The sex offender program group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

143

• The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Responsivity factor scores were not consistently located in treatment files. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

144

Figure 12a: SCI Dallas Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Dallas 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

145

Figure 12b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Dallas (n=43) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 76.7 79.2 80.0 73.2 67.4 61.2 61.3 60.0 58.1 Dallas All SCIs 48.8 49.2 48.8 48.8

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

146

SCI-Fayette Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.6% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 52.6% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. But the majority indicated that the facility has improved in terms of the institutional climate supportive of treatment • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 6 to 8 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Groups are typically co-facilitated and both staff are active. • Groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The current program manager does not provide clinical supervision.

147

• Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Batterers’ group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-20 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Batterers’ group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

148

SCI-Fayette Thinking for a Change

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. But the majority indicated that the facility has improved in terms of the institutional climate supportive of treatment. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

149

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-20 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Thinking for a Change group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

150

SCI-Fayette Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.3% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 53.5% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The program manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. But the majority indicated that the facility has improved in terms of the institutional climate supportive of treatment. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 24 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Violence Prevention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • There was evidence that treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high- risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

151

Areas that Need Improvement: • The current program manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-20 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

152

SCI-Fayette Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 55.8% Effective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 60.5% Effective Overall Score 56.6% Effective

Strengths: • There is a licensed psychology manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The manager is involved in the hiring process and appears to select staff for group experience and skills related to service delivery. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. But the majority indicated that the facility has improved in terms of the institutional climate supportive of treatment. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. They also conduct an interview that includes an evaluation of the offender’s offense details. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk groups. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills, and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The average group size for the SOP groups is 8-9 participants. • The moderate-high intensity program lasts approximately 22 months and the low intensity program approximately 8-9 months. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. However, instead of each facilitator running through the full curriculum with each group, the facilitators are assigned to run a particular phase of the curriculum. So each time a client moves to the next phase of the curriculum, he is assigned a new facilitator. • Groups were consistently conducted by the treatment staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings first. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, the current facilitators appeared to have good rapport with the offenders and avoid arguments. 153

• SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high-risk situations. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Group facilitators only attend formal staff meetings to review client progress once a month. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • The facilitators do not appear to consistently model appropriate skills in groups and explain the skill’s benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Although some facilitators indicate that they use the participant surveys at the end of each phase, participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction in each group. • Group participants are not given pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

154

Figure 13a: SCI Fayette Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Fayette 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

155

Figure 13b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Fayette (n=21) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 95.2

78.1 79.2 80.0 71.4 73.2 61.9 61.2 61.3 60.0 49.2 Fayette All SCIs

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

156

SCI-Forest

Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 50.0% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 54.7% Needs Improvement Overall Score 54.4% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place to oversee management of the groups. • The unit manager is involved in selecting group facilitators. She was involved in interviewing case managers to become treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution appears to support the use of treatment services and groups within the prison. No active resistance from staff. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the Batterers’ program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. The staff noted that less than 10% of the time they may receive those with significant mental illness. In those cases they are removed from the group. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • Because the group is routinely co-facilitated, the group size often exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there appeared to be clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The length of group (e.g., approx. 6 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Group facilitators appear to consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • The Batterers’ groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • The Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

157

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Group facilitators/treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Group facilitators meet only one time per month to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Batterer’s Intervention Group, Power and Control: Tactics of Men who Batter is not considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The treatment manual does not appear to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • It was not clear that the facilitators are having participants develop risk or relapse prevention plans and practice those plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

158

SCI-Forest Thinking for a Change

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place to oversee management of the groups. • The unit manager is involved in selecting group facilitators. She was involved in interviewing case managers to become treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution appears to support the use of treatment services and groups within the prison. There is no active resistance from staff. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. • The offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. The staff noted that less than 10% of the time they may receive those with significant mental illness. In those cases they are removed from the group. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • All offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for A Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear to consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision.

159

• Group facilitators were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Group facilitators meet only one time per month to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Thinking for a Change does not devote any sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

160

SCI-Forest Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.3% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 57.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place to oversee management of the groups. • The unit manager is involved in selecting group facilitators. She was involved in interviewing case managers to become treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution appears to support the use of treatment services and groups within the prison. There is no active resistance from staff. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. • The offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. The staff noted that less than 10% of the time they may receive those with significant mental illness. In those cases they are removed from the group. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there appeared to be clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The length of group (e.g., approx. 25 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The treatment manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear to consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • The Violence Prevention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. • The Violence Prevention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision

161

• Group facilitators/treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Group facilitators meet only one time per month to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The group size often exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • It was not clear that the facilitators are having participants develop risk or relapse prevention plans and practice those plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. 12

12 SCI Forest did not submit Staff Surveys. Therefore, the staff survey chart is missing for SCI Forest. 162

Figure 14a: SCI Forest Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Fore s t 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP

*Sex offender programming was not offered at SCI Forest

163

SCI-Frackville Batterers’ Intervention CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 67.6% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 80% Highly Effective Overall Capacity 73.3% Highly Effective Overall Content 67.5% Highly Effective Overall Score 69.1% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Furthermore, group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Facilitators have identified appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs.

164

• Batterers’ Intervention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the Batterers’ Intervention group. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While Batterers’ Intervention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

165

SCI-Frackville Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 79.4% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Capacity 73.3% Highly Effective Overall Content 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Score 77.8% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Furthermore, group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for a Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Thinking for a Change manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change group size meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Facilitators have identified appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are modeled and the benefits of learning a new skill are consistently explained by facilitators.

166

• Participants are required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Thinking for a Change group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high-risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

167

SCI-Frackville Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 58.8% Effective Quality Assurance 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Capacity 73.3% Highly Effective Overall Content 62.5% Effective Overall Score 65.5% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the violence prevention program and to select the staff operating the program. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • Facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of violence prevention programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Violence prevention targets primarily high risk offenders. • The primary focus of the violence prevention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used incorporates many evidence-based cognitive-behavioral elements. • The violence prevention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators encouraged group participation. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed. • The group size was consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • Responsivity issues are addressed by accommodating offenders with language barriers or literacy issues. • The types of rewards and punishers used by the program were appropriate. • Facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Facilitators recognized and dealt appropriately with possible negative effects of punishers. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. • Facilitators appeared to avoid arguments and have a good rapport and with the offenders. • Violence prevention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and address antisocial thinking. • Violence prevention groups are periodically observed and facilitators are given feedback on delivery skills. • Violence prevention participants are given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria are in place. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each violence prevention participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • While there is a program coordinator in place, formal supervision is too infrequent. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum).

168

• While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While most offenders in the VP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ, this was not true for all participants. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • Although homework was consistently assigned, it was not reviewed by facilitators on a regular basis. • Groups were not consistently conducted by the facilitator. • While appropriate reinforcers were in place, the application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not systematically and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans are not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • While group participants are administered post-tests, there are no pre-tests used to assess changes in target behaviors.

169

SCI-Frackville Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 75.0% Highly Effective Treatment 32.0% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 37.0% Ineffective Overall Score 40.0% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the SOP program and to select the staff operating the program. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk is assessed using the LSI-R. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • The program model being used incorporates many evidence-based cognitive-behavioral elements. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff. • The group size was consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • Responsivity issues are addressed by offering separate treatment to special needs sex offenders as well as accommodating offenders with language or literacy issues. • The types of punishers used by the program was appropriate. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators appeared to have good rapport with the offenders. • SOP sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • While there is a program coordinator in place, formal supervision is too infrequent (monthly meetings). • SOP group facilitators were assigned to conduct SOP programming versus being selected based upon interest and skill in conducting sex offender treatment. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While the Static-99 is used by the program, it was not consistently found in the files reviewed. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • There appeared to be substantial variation in the level of participant involvement in groups. • Homework was not consistently assigned and reviewed by facilitators on a regular basis. • While the SOP program uses the Medlin model, the curriculum is not consistently followed.

170

• While the group facilitators regularly use verbal praise as a reinforcer for appropriate behavior, there is not a range of reinforcers and the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • A range of appropriate punishers are not consistently applied by the group facilitators for antisocial behavior or noncompliance. Likewise, alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. Most role play is reserved for the aftercare portion of the program. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not systematically and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

171

Figure 15a: SCI Frackville Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective Frackville 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

172

Figure 15b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Frackville (n=32) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

81.3 78.1 78.1 79.2 80.0 75.0 75.0 73.2 65.6 61.2 61.3 60.0 53.1 Frackville All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

173

SCI-Graterford Batterers’ Intervention

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • There was consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

174

• Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • While all group facilitators appear comfortable facilitating group, not all facilitators consistently demonstrated clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Group facilitators are not teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

175

SCI-Graterford Thinking for a Change CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 40% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 43.9% Ineffective Overall Score 46.4% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic, including antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. • The Thinking for a Change model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators were not selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate.

176

• The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in criminal thinking. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was not a consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • The Thinking for a Change manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Group facilitators are not teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

177

SCI-Graterford Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 37.1% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 41.5% Ineffective Overall Score 44.6% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • The Violence Prevention model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

178

• The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • While all group facilitators appear comfortable facilitating group, not all facilitators consistently demonstrated clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • The Violence Prevention manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Group facilitators are not teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

179

SCI-Graterford Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 62.9% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Score 63% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in sex offender programming were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R, as well as the Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. • The sex offender programming model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups consistently begin and end on time. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Medlin manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The group meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • The sex offender program group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

180

• Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • There was not consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing life management plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

181

Figure 16a: SCI Graterford Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Graterford 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

182

Figure 16b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Graterfod (n=23) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 90.0 91.3

78.1 79.2 78.3 80.0 73.9 73.2

60.9 61.2 61.3 60.0 Graterford All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

21.7 20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

183

SCI-Greene Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 50.0% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Capacity 73.3% Highly Effective Overall Content 54.7% Needs Improvement Overall Score 59.6% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., approximately 6 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently • Batterers’ groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations • There was evidence that the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits and required participants to practice behaviors • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

184

Areas that Need Improvement: • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Batterer’s Intervention Group, Power and Control: Tactics of Men who Batter is not considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • While the groups were co-facilitated, the facilitators were not equally active in facilitating the groups. • The Batterers’ group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants. The ratio would be sufficient if both facilitators were active. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

185

SCI-Greene Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 57.1% Effective Quality Assurance 60.0% Highly Effective Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Content 60.9% Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

186

• Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants. • While some role-playing does occur, there was evidence that not all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits and required participants to practice behaviors. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

187

SCI-Greene Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 48.5% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Content 53.6% Needs Improvement Overall Score 57.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 24 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Violence Prevention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Group facilitators are regularly (approximately one time per month) observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

188

Areas that Need Improvement: • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • The facilitators are not consistently modeling appropriate skills and explaining their benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

189

SCI-Greene Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 47.1% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 52.6% Needs Improvement Overall Score 52.8% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a Chief Psychologist in place to oversee the treatment groups. The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The Chief Psychologists is involved in the hiring process for the psychological services staff. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • The psychological services staff meet weekly to discuss treatment and staff cases at psych review team meeting. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed at Camp Hill for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk groups. However, the staff note that they are a higher custody institution and as such have more clients in the moderate/high intensity groups than low intensity groups. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The moderate-high intensity program lasts approximately 24 months and the low intensity program approximately 8-10 months. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups were consistently conducted by the treatment staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings initially before the facilitator considered removing them from group. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, the facilitators appeared to have good rapport with the offenders and avoid arguments. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations.

190

• Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The chief psychologist does not provide clinical supervision on a regular basis. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • It was not clear that staff were chosen based on skills related to service delivery. • The group size normally starts out between 10 and 15 participants. • The length of treatment is a concern in the situation where low risk clients are mixed in with high risk clients. On occasion the groups will be run with both low and moderate/high risk clients because there aren’t enough clients to run a low intensity group. In this situation, the low risk clients are required to complete the full curriculum. This is an inappropriate length of treatment for clients deemed in need of only low intensity services • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • The facilitators do not appear to consistently model appropriate skills in groups and explain the skill’s benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction in each group. • Group participants are not given pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

191

Figure 17a: SCI Greene Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Greene 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

192

Figure 17b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Greene (n=53) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 92.5 90.6 88.7 78.1 79.2 79.2 80.0 75.5 73.2 61.2 61.3 60.0 52.8 Greene All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

193

SCI-Greensburg Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.7% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 60.0% Effective Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 57.8% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 6 to 8 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • The groups are normally co-facilitated and both facilitators are active in group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Batterers’ groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. The facilitators encourage the participant to process the event in group and offers prosocial alternatives. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • The facilitators are utilizing satisfaction surveys with the Batterers’ Intervention group. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

194

• The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Although the groups are co-facilitated, 20 participants is considered too large. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Treatment specialists did not modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were not required to practice skills in group. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The Batterers’ group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

195

SCI-Greensburg Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 62.8% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 65.8% Highly Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. The facilitators encourage the participant to process the event in group and offers prosocial alternatives. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

196

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-20 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Thinking for a Change group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

197

SCI-Greensburg Violence Prevention

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 24 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Violence Prevention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. The facilitators encourage the participant to process the event in group and offers prosocial alternatives. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

198

• The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-20 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Treatment specialists did not modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were not required to practice skills in group. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Violence Prevention group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

199

SCI-Greensburg Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 80.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 52.9% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Content 57.8% Effective Overall Score 60.4% Effective

Strengths: • There is a licensed psychology manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the psychological services staff. The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The manager is involved in the hiring process and appears to select staff for group experience and skills related to service delivery. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders appear supportive of sex offender treatment at the facility. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. They also conduct an interview that includes an evaluation of the offender’s offense details. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The group size of approximately 8-10 participants is appropriate. • The moderate-high intensity program lasts approximately 18 -20 months and the low intensity program approximately 6-8 months. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or lose points for the particular day. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators appeared to have good rapport with the offenders and avoid arguments. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations.

200

• The supervisor observes groups once every six weeks (on average). • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • Group facilitators do not consistently attend formal staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

201

Figure 18a: SCI Greensburg Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Greensburg 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 SOP* 0 Overall TFC BIP VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

202

Figure 18b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Greensburg (n=54) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 84.9 81.1 79.2 78.1 75.9 80.0 70.4 73.2 66.0 58.5 61.2 61.3 60.0 Greensburg 49.2

% All SCIs 40.0

20.0

0.0

203

SCI-Houtzdale Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 41.6% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 47.6% Needs Improvement Overall Score 49.1% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place who was responsible for selecting staff for the treatment specialist position. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession and have at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • The program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • There is appropriate selection and exclusionary criteria for the program. Exclusion or selection into T4C is decided by staff at Camp Hill. • Risk factors/criminogenic needs are assessed at Camp Hill with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Camp Hill including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Camp Hill and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the WRAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The BIT groups appear to target higher risk and higher need clients • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • The BIT group facilitators utilize treatment manuals. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • Homework is given nearly every session and is reviewed. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The duration of the group is approximately 26 sessions (2 x per week for 1.5 hours) which is considered appropriate. • The batterers’ group is typically co-facilitated and both facilitators were active. • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity by using other groups members as translators or having group members assist as necessary. • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, boundaries and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators utilize the HIQ and CSS-M as pre-post measures. • The facilitators complete discharge summaries at the end of group discussing client’s progress, attendance, and participation.

204

• It was not clear that staff were hired based on clinical skills. Staff were asked to volunteer for the position, however, only one person volunteered. The others were placed in the position based on some degree of experience; however, there were not clear criteria in place. • Formal staff meetings with treatment specialists occur only one time per month. • Although staff were trained on the curriculum, due to budget cuts they do not receive sufficient on-going training on counseling related topics. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • The facilitators will encourage group participation through asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group, however, they noted that if a client may choose not to participate. • The group size normally runs between 15 to 16 participants with only one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • The facilitators are not systematically teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • The group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed or evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Completion criteria are not well developed and completion of group appears to be driven mostly by the curriculum (e.g., completion of sessions). • The facilitators do not consistently utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group.

205

SCI-Houtzdale Thinking for a Change

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place who was responsible for selecting staff for the treatment specialist position. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession and have at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • The program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • There is appropriate selection and exclusionary criteria for the program. Exclusion or selection into T4C is decided by staff at Camp Hill. • Risk factors/criminogenic needs are assessed at Camp Hill with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Camp Hill including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Camp Hill and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the WRAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • The T4C groups are cognitive-behavioral in nature and utilize treatment manuals. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • Homework is given nearly every session and is reviewed. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The duration of the group is approximately 22 sessions (2 x per week for 1.5 hours) which is considered appropriate. • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity by using other groups members as translators or having group members assist as necessary. • Facilitators model prosocial skills in group and explain the benefits of learning new prosocial skills. • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, boundaries and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators are engaged in activities related to cognitive restructuring such has helping clients recognize their underlying attitudes and attempting to replace those attitudes with more prosocial thought patterns and ultimately responses. • Near the end of the curriculum, facilitators develop risk plans and rehearse these plans with clients. • The facilitators utilize the HIQ and CSS-M as pre-post measures. • The facilitators complete discharge summaries at the end of a group discussing clients’ progress, attendance, and participation.

Areas that Need Improvement:

206

• Although the program coordinator does oversee the treatment specialists, they are supervised by their own unit managers. This creates some problems with leadership of the overall continuity of the program. The program coordinator also does not provide clinical supervision. • It was not clear that staff were hired based on clinical skills. Staff were asked to volunteer for the position, however, only one person volunteered. The others were placed in the position based on some degree of experience; however, there were not clear criteria in place. • Formal staff meetings with treatment specialists occur only one time per month. • Although staff were trained on the T4C curriculum, due to budget cuts they do not receive sufficient on- going training on counseling related topics. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • The facilitators will encourage group participation through asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group, however, they noted that if a client doesn’t want to participate they will not require it. • The group size normally runs between 15 to 16 participants with only one facilitator. • While the facilitators offer certificates for group completion, the facilitators do not have a sufficient number of rewards in place to encourage new skills and prosocial behavior. • While the facilitators do respond to noncompliance with some consequences, the program does not have a range of consequences. For example, while the client may lose points for not participating or attending group, there are very few other consequences (other than simply removing them) utilized to shape behavior. • While the facilitators do model appropriate behavior in group, they do not utilize role play activities to have clients practice new skills in group. Moreover, there is no evidence that they provide opportunities for clients to practice skills in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed or evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Completion criteria are not well developed and completion of group appears to be driven mostly by the curriculum (e.g., completion of 22 sessions). • The facilitators do not consistently utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group.

207

SCI-Houtzdale Violence Prevention

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator (unit manager) in place who was responsible for selecting staff for the treatment specialist position. • All group facilitators have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping profession and have at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • There is a documented code of ethics or guideline for group facilitators. • The program appears to be supported by the institutional staff. • There is appropriate selection and exclusionary criteria for the program. Exclusion or selection into T4C is decided by staff at Camp Hill. • Risk factors/criminogenic needs are assessed at Camp Hill with a validated risk assessment (LSI-R). The facility has access to automated results. • Risk and need level is defined for each participant at Camp Hill including the HIQ & CSS-M. The facilitators have access to automated results. • Responsivity is assessed at Camp Hill and includes IQ, a personality inventory, the WRAT, and the TABE. The facilitators have access to automated results. • The VP groups appear to target higher risk and higher need clients. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The VP group facilitators utilize treatment manuals. • The group facilitators appear comfortable with the material being provided. • Homework is given nearly every session and is reviewed. • Group norms are established on the first day. Each participant is required to sign a form and is given a copy of group norms. Norms are reviewed throughout the duration of the group on an as-needed basis. • The duration of the group is approximately 25 sessions (2 x per week for 1.5 hours) which is considered appropriate. • Groups are always conducted by a facilitator. • Facilitators address responsivity by using other groups members as translators or having group members assist as necessary. They also offer a violence prevention special needs class. • Facilitators model prosocial skills in group and explain the benefits of learning new prosocial skills. • The facilitators appear to establish a good rapport, boundaries and avoid arguments with participants. • The facilitators are engaged in activities related to cognitive restructuring such has helping clients recognize their underlying attitudes and attempting to replace those attitudes with more prosocial thought patterns and ultimately responses to anger. • Near the end of the curriculum, facilitators develop risk plans and rehearse these plans with clients. • The facilitators utilize the HIQ and CSS-M as pre-post measures. • The facilitators complete discharge summaries at the end of group discussing client’s progress, attendance, and participation.

208

Areas that Need Improvement: • Although the program coordinator does oversee the treatment specialists, they are supervised by their own unit managers. This creates some problems with leadership of the overall continuity of the program. The program coordinator also does not provide clinical supervision. • It was not clear that staff were hired based on clinical skills. Staff were asked to volunteer for the position, however, only one person volunteered. The others were placed in the position based on some degree of experience; however, there were not clear criteria in place. • Formal staff meetings with treatment specialists occur only one time per month. • Although staff were trained on the VP curriculum, due to budget cuts they do not receive sufficient on- going training on counseling related topics. • Due to institutional constraints the groups do not start and end on time. • The facilitators will encourage group participation through asking for volunteers and calling on participants throughout group, however, they noted they will require participation. • The group size normally runs between 15 to 16 participants with only one facilitator. • While the facilitators offer certificates for group completion, the facilitators do not have a sufficient number of rewards in place to encourage new skills and prosocial behavior. • While the facilitators do respond to noncompliance with some consequences, the program does not have a range of consequences. For example, while the client may lose points for not participating or attending group, there are very few other consequences (other than simply removing them) utilized to shape behavior. • While the facilitators do model appropriate behavior in group, they do not utilize role play activities to have clients practice new skills in group. Moreover, there is no evidence that they provide opportunities for clients to practice skills in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed or evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Completion criteria are not well developed and completion of group appears to be driven mostly by the curriculum (e.g., completion of sessions). • The facilitators do not consistently utilize participant satisfaction forms at the end of group.

209

SCI-Houtzdale Sex Offender Programming- Modified Therapeutic Community

CPC SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Leadership & Development 76.9% Highly Effective Staff Characteristics 72.7% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 73.3% Highly Effective Treatment Characteristics 35.3% Ineffective Quality Assurance 14.3% Ineffective Overall Capacity 61.3% Effective Overall Content 44.8% Ineffective Overall Score 51.2% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • The program director is qualified with a Master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling and over 15 years of experience. • The director is actively involved in selecting, training, and supervising treatment staff who work within the sex offender program. • The program director regularly conducts groups. • The SOP program appears to be valued by the facility and the facility does not experience any difficulties with the at-large community. • Funding appears to be adequate to implement the program as designed. • The program has been in operation for approximately 12 years. • Staff do meet the criteria for education and experience. • The SOP staff meet regularly, approximately 1 time per week. • Staff are assessed quarterly on service delivery skills as well as annually with a traditional DOC assessment. • The staff receive clinical supervision through the program director. • Staff appear to support the program and regularly provide input. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • The program also offers a special needs class for those with low IQ’s or personality disorders. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The high intensity program lasts approximately 18 months and the low intensity program approximately 6- 8 months. • The Medlin curriculum is used and followed. • Offenders can give input into the program through their peers on the program committee. These members can take issues or concerns directly to the program director. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • The program is always conducted by a staff member, however, they also utilized peer assistants in group. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group. • Each participant is required to attend aftercare sessions for at least a period of 12 months or 18 sessions (unless paroled). • Participants are surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group.

210

Areas that Need Improvement: • There was no evidence that the literature on effective interventions is consistently consulted and disseminated to staff. • There was no evidence that the program and services are regularly piloted before full implementation. • The changes in funding have had an impact on the program through cuts in available training for staff. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. However, low risk clients may be in the higher intensity groups based on other factors such as offense or type of victims. • There was no evidence that the assessment tools have been validated on the population. • There is no empirical evidence to support the Medlin curriculum. • While the program does operate its sex offender program on a particular unit, it is missing some of behavioral elements of the TC such as a continuum of rewards and sanctions developed to encourage prosocial behavior. • The program has tried to implement a positive peer culture through the development of committees; however, it could be enhanced through various techniques traditionally utilized by therapeutic communities. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s’ prosocial behaviors. • Facilitators do not consistently respond appropriately to matters of noncompliance (e.g., group punishers are sometimes used when one person has engaged in an infraction). • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Completion criteria for the group are not well developed. • The program does not work with family members in any capacity. • While aftercare is provided, there is no measure of its quality. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • The program staff are not made aware of the recidivism rates of its participants. • The program has not been subjected to a formal evaluation.

211

Figure 19a: SCI Houtzdale Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Houtzdale 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

212

Figure 19b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Houtzdale (n=82) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

78.1 76.8 79.2 80.0 74.4 73.2 69.5 61.2 61.3 57.3 60.0 53.7 Houtzdale All SCIs 49.2 45.1

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

213

SCI-Huntingdon Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 61.4% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 64.3% Effective Overall Score 61.4% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Batterers’ Intervention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders are supportive of the Batterers’ Intervention program. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the BIP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Batterers’ Intervention targets primarily moderate to high risk offenders, based upon the LSI-R. • The primary focus of the Batterers’ Intervention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The Batterers’ Intervention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Both of the co-facilitators were active in the group and given that groups were co-facilitated, the group size was appropriate. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Appropriate punishers were in place and group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Facilitators encouraged participants to recognize and promote one another’s’ prosocial behavior. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants, and avoided argumentation with offenders. • Batterers’ Intervention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations, and works to replace antisocial thought patterns with prosocial alternatives. • Group participants were administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each Batterers’ Intervention participant upon completion of the group.

214

• Treatment specialists were not systematically selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While most offenders in the BIP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ and LSI-R, this was not true for all participants. • The Duluth program model being used for BIP has been shown to be ineffective at reducing offending behavior. • Due to movement issues, group did not consistently begin and end on time. • The range of reinforcers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • While skills training with corrective feedback is built in to the Batterers’ Intervention curriculum, offenders spent a significant amount of time having antisocial behaviors modeled to them via the videos. Likewise, while offenders did practice prosocial alternatives to high risk situations, practice was too infrequent. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While action plans were created, comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Batterers’ Intervention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

215

SCI-Huntingdon Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 62.9% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 65.9% Highly Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Thinking for a Change program. • The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders are supportive of the Thinking for a Change program. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the CCS-M. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the TFC participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Thinking for a Change targets primarily moderate to high risk offenders, based upon the LSI-R. • The primary focus of the Thinking for a Change program is on criminogenic need areas. • Thinking for a Change is an evidence-based program that is based on a cognitive-behavioral model. • The Thinking for a Change facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Facilitators used peers to promote prosocial behaviors. • Appropriate punishers were in place and group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Prosocial skills were regularly modeled in group. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants, and avoided argumentation with offenders. • Thinking for a Change sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and works to replace antisocial thought patterns with prosocial alternatives. • Group participants were administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each Thinking for a Change participant upon completion of the group.

216

• Treatment specialists were not systematically selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While most offenders in the TFC group where moderate to high need based on the CCS-M and LSI-R, this was not true for all participants. • Due to movement issues, group did not consistently begin and end on time. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The range of reinforcers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • While skills training with corrective feedback is built in to the Thinking for a change curriculum, all participants were not able to practice each skill due to shortened treatment sessions. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Antisocial thinking and values were not consistently addressed in the group. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future criminal behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Thinking for a Change participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

217

SCI-Huntingdon Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 60.0% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 63.4% Effective Overall Score 60.7% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Violence Prevention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders are supportive of the Violence Prevention program. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Violence Prevention targets primarily moderate to high risk offenders, based upon the LSI-R. • The primary focus of the Violence Prevention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used incorporates evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral elements. • The Violence Prevention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Appropriate punishers were in place and group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Prosocial skills were regularly modeled in group. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants, and avoided argumentation with offenders. • Violence Prevention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations, and works to replace antisocial thought patterns with prosocial alternatives. • Group participants were administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each Violence Prevention participant upon completion of the group.

218

• Treatment specialists were not systematically selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • While most offenders in the VP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ and LSI-R, this was not true for all participants. • Due to movement issues, group did not consistently begin and end on time. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The range of reinforcers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Violence Prevention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Violence Prevention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

219

SCI-Huntingdon Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 90.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100.0% Highly Effective Treatment 60.0% Effective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Content 64.1% Effective Overall Score 68.5% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There was a program coordinator in place to oversee the groups being offered and to select or approve group facilitators. • The program coordinator provides direct supervision to facilitators and regular staff meetings are held. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • The group facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • SOP treatment is based upon a cognitive-behavioral model. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Groups were of an appropriate size and both co-facilitators were active in the groups. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff and staff encouraged group participation. • Group norms were established and followed. • SOP programming attempts to address responsivity issues by offering a group for special needs offenders and working individually with those who have difficulty comprehending the material. • Appropriate types and procedures for punishing unwanted behavior were in place. Likewise, facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators avoided argumentation and appeared to have good rapport with the offenders. • Risk or relapse prevention plans were developed and rehearsed. • A participant satisfaction survey is completed for each program graduate. • The program has objective completion criteria in place. • A discharge summary is written for each participant that completes SOP group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • Due to movement issues, the group did not consistently begin and end on time. • While homework is regularly assigned and consistently reviewed by the facilitator in high and low intensity groups, in it not readily incorporated into aftercare.

220

• While the Medlin curriculum is used for Low and High intensity SOP, the aftercare group does not use a structured curriculum. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • New prosocial skills are not regularly modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • While participants do receive end of session exams, there is no pre-post testing used to gauge offender progress in treatment.

221

Figure 20a: SCI Huntingdon Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective Huntingdon 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

222

Figure 20b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Huntingdon (n=104) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0

79.2 78.1 76.2 80.0 73.8 73.2 65.4 61.2 59.6 61.3 60.0 53.4 Huntingdon 49.2 45.6 % All SCIs 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

223

SCI-Laurel Highlands Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 55.6% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 59.5% Effective Overall Score 57.8% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and had at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 26 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Groups are typically co-facilitated and both staff members were active. As a result, the group size (15-16) is appropriate. • Groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. They also offer separate groups for those who are receiving skilled care. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • There was evidence that the treatment specialists do attempt to model skills for participants and have them practice skills through role playing. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors.

224

• Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists only meet one time a month to formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Batterers’ group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

225

SCI-Laurel Highlands Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 70.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 58.8% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60.0% Effective Overall Content 62.5% Effective Overall Score 61.8% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and had at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. They also offer separate groups for those who are receiving skilled care. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

226

Areas that Need Improvement: • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists only meet one time a month to formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants and only one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

227

SCI-Laurel Highlands Violence Prevention

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and had at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the group were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence-based principles, however, there is limited research to support its effectiveness. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 26 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. They also offer separate groups for those who are receiving skilled care. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or may be suspended for a day. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

228

• The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists only meet one time a month to formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Facilitators are not consistently modeling skills and explaining the benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient.

229

SCI-Laurel Highlands Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 35.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Ineffective Overall Content 42.1% Ineffective Overall Score 43.3% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a Chief Psychologist in place to oversee the treatment groups. The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The manager would be involved in the hiring process, however, has not yet had the opportunity to hire staff. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • Staff meets weekly to discuss client progress. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered, • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. They also conduct an interview that includes an evaluation of the offender’s offense details. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk groups. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The moderate-high intensity program lasts approximately 24 months and the low intensity program approximately 10 months. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • Boundaries between the treatment facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The psychologist does not provide consistent clinical supervision. • The psychological services staff do not meet the CPC-GA experience requirement of having at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Group facilitators only attend formal staff meetings to review client progress once a month. • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.

230

• The SOP group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15 participants. • The program relies too heavily on peer assistants to facilitate group and provide services outside of group. • The peer assistants are not trained to encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • The peer assistants are not trained in the Medlin curriculum and should not be the primary facilitator in group. • The peer assistants are not trained in the area of responsivity and as such it is unclear whether participants who are struggling in group are receiving extra attention. • It was not clear that all of the psychological services staff have established a group rapport with group members. Not all of the staff seemed engaged with the clients. • Arguments between participants and facilitators was observed. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • The facilitators do not appear to consistently model appropriate skills in groups and explain the skill’s benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction in each group. • Group participants are not given pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

231

Figure 21a: SCI Laurel Highlands Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Laurel Highlands 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

232

Figure 21b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Laurel Highlands (n=55) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 96.4 100.0 92.7 83.6 78.1 79.2 80.0 80.0 72.7 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 Laurel Highlands 49.2

% All SCIs 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

233

SCI-Mahanoy Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 40.0% Ineffective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 46.3% Needs Improvement Overall Score 47.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Batterers’ Intervention are criminogenic. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Batterers’ Intervention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

234

• The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • All offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression based on the HIQ. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group facilitators do not consistently attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified; as such they are not appropriately applied. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is not clearly established across facilitators. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While Batterers’ Intervention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

235

SCI-Mahanoy Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 34.3% Ineffective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 41.4% Ineffective Overall Score 41.1% Ineffective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • All offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for A Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Thinking for a Change group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Additionally, group facilitators were selected based upon seniority rather than group facilitation experience and skills. • The group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum).

236

• While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • While facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group, there was not a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, does not occur consistently. • The Thinking for a Change manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Appropriate punishers have not been identified; as such they are not appropriately applied. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is not clearly established across facilitators. • Arguments with group participants are not avoided consistently across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Thinking for a Change does not devote any sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

237

SCI-Mahanoy Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 41.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 47.5% Needs Improvement Overall Score 47.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the violence prevention program. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • Facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of violence prevention programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Violence prevention targets primarily high risk offenders. • The primary focus of the violence prevention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used incorporates many evidence-based cognitive-behavioral elements. • The violence prevention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues are addressed by accommodating offenders with language barriers or literacy issues. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. • Violence prevention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and address antisocial thinking. • Participants are consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered pre- and post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Violence prevention participants are given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each violence prevention participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator had limited discretion in selecting treatment specialists to conduct the programming and treatment specialists were not selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • While there is a program coordinator in place, formal supervision is too infrequent. • The group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirement for experience in offender rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.

238

• While most offenders in the VP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ, this was not true for all participants. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • Facilitators did not consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was not consistently assigned and reviewed by group facilitators. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Facilitators did not consistently respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Prosocial skills are not regularly modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Facilitators did not consistently avoid arguments with participants and establish a good rapport and with the offenders. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans are not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Violence prevention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

239

SCI-Mahanoy Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 100.0% Highly Effective Treatment 45.5.0% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 33.3% Ineffective Overall Content 51.4% Needs Improvement Overall Score 46.2% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • The SOP groups generally start and end on time. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • The length of SOP groups was sufficient to affect the target behavior. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff. • Appropriate punishers were used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators avoided argumentation and appeared to have good rapport with the offenders. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • There was no program coordinator in place to oversee the groups being offered or to provide direct supervision to facilitators at the time of the assessment. • There was no program coordinator in place to select or approve group facilitators at the time of the assessment. • All group facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA experience requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for a period of at least two years. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • Although homework is regularly assigned, it is not consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • While the SOP program uses the Medlin model, the curriculum is not consistently followed.

240

• The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • While the SOP does offer a group for special needs offenders, the facilitators were not consistent in addressing responsivity issues within the SOP group setting. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Facilitators do not consistently respond appropriately to matters of noncompliance (e.g., group punishers are sometimes used when one person has engaged in an infraction). • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Participants are not systematically and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

241

Figure 22a: SCI Mahanoy Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Mahanoy 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

242

Figure 22b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Mahanoy (n=64) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

96.8 93.8 100.0 90.6 81.0 78.1 79.2 77.8 80.0 75.0 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 Mahanoy All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

243

SCI-Mercer Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 58.3% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 61.9% Effective Overall Score 57.8% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., approximately 6 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Batterers’ groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The Batterers’ group size fit within the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 12-13 participants. Both facilitators were active in group. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or are put on behavioral contracts. They may also be required to complete additional homework assignments or write essays. The staff also use support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients and they appear to assess potential negative effects of punishment. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

244

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits or consistently required participants to practice behaviors. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

245

SCI-Mercer Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 65.7% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 68.2% Highly Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Thinking for a Chance groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or are put on behavioral contracts. They may also be required to complete additional homework assignments or write essays. The staff also use support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients and they appear to assess potential negative effects of punishment. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • The facilitators appear to role model and practice skills with participants. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

246

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 12-13 participants and only have one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits or consistently required participants to practice behaviors. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

247

SCI-Mercer Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 62.8% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 65.8% Highly Effective Overall Score 60.7% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and at least two years experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to support its effectiveness. Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 25 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Violence Prevention groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or are put on behavioral contracts. They may also be required to complete additional homework assignments or write essays. The staff also use support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients and they appear to assess potential negative effects of punishment. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • The facilitators appear to role model and practice skills with participants. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group. 248

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 12-13 participants and only have one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits or consistently required participants to practice behaviors. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

249

SCI-Mercer Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 38.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 44.7% Ineffective Overall Score 47.2% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a Chief Psychologist in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise staff. The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. They also conduct an interview that includes an evaluation of the offender’s offense details. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk groups. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups were consistently conducted by the treatment staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings first but also may lose points for the particular day. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, the current facilitators appeared to avoid arguments with participants. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The psychological services staff do not meet the CPC-GA requirements of having at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Group facilitators only attend formal staff meetings once a month.

250

• While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. Related, one of the facilitators did appear comfortable delivering the material and could benefit from additional training or mentoring. • The SOP group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15-16 participants. • The facilitators do not appear to have a well articulated plan in place on how to deal with responsivity issues such as language barriers, learning difficulties, or particularly difficult clients. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • The facilitators do not appear to consistently model appropriate skills in groups and explain the skill’s benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction in each group. • Group participants are not given pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

251

Figure 23a: SCI Mercer Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Mercer 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable

252

Figure 23b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Mercer (n=41) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0 85.4 80.5 78.1 80.5 79.2 80.0 73.2 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 56.1 56.1 Mercer All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

253

SCI-Muncy Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 77.1% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 60% Effective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 78% Highly Effective Overall Score 75% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. • The Thinking for a Change model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are modeled and the benefits of learning a new skill are consistently explained by facilitators.

254

• Participants are required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills by a Unit Manager at Muncy. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in criminal thinking. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

255

SCI-Muncy Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 60% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 71.4% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 60% Effective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 73.2% Highly Effective Overall Score 69.6% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • The Violence Prevention model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators.

256

• Skills are modeled and the benefits of learning a new skill are consistently explained by facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills by a Unit Manager at Muncy. • . • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

257

SCI-Muncy Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 61.8% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 65.8% Highly Effective Overall Score 64.2% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in sex offender programming were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R, as well as the Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. Furthermore, Medlin: Responsible Living is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The group meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both.

258

• Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • The group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, and participants are required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • The sex offender program group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • There was not a consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • While facilitators used the Medlin manual, the manual was not consistently followed in order across group facilitators. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

259

Figure 24a: SCI Muncy Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective Muncy 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable. SCI Muncy did not offer a BI program

260

Figure 24b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Muncy (n=61) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0 85.2 80.3 78.1 79.2 80.0 73.8 73.2 66.7 61.2 61.3 60.0 57.4 Muncy All SCIs 49.2

% 41.0 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

261

SCI-Pine Grove Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.7% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 54.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • SCI Pine Grove has both a Young Adult Offender Program (YAOP) as well as groups targeting adults. Youth under the age of 19.5 at the time they enter the institution are placed in the YAOP. The program currently serves participants ages 15-21. The facility has approximately 320 individuals currently in the YAOP. • There is a treatment manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Invention groups were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. The same assessment process is utilized for both YAOP and adult populations. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • The program offers the Batterers’ groups for both the YAOP as well as their adult population. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., approximately six months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. Length of group does not differ for the YAOP or adult populations. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. The facilitators utilize the same curriculum and approach for both the YAOP and the adult groups. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • The groups are co-facilitated by staff from beginning to end. Both facilitators were active in group. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. The facilitators modified examples used in the curriculum to make them more relevant to youth. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. Some facilitators utilize yard restrictions and cell restrictions. • There were clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they had established good rapport. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs.

262

• Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. The program manager utilizes the DOC program evaluation tool and provides the facilitator with feedback. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The treatment manager was not involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than clinical skills related to service delivery. • The treatment specialists do not meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and do not have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The facility and/or Camp Hill may wish to consider using the Youthful Level of Service/Case Management Inventory with its younger participants (e.g., those under 18 years of age). • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. Although the facilitators noted that the YAOP groups are more likely to start and end on time because the groups are run in the units. • While treatment specialists appear to have a good rapport with the participants, they should work to ensure that every client actively participates in each group. • Space is a problem with the YAOP groups. One of the groups observed was conducted in the middle of the pod, which compromised the group atmosphere and the confidentiality of its participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors not do they practice behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Batterers’ curriculum does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each often.

263

SCI-Pine Grove Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 60.0% Effective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 63.4% Effective Overall Score 58.9% Effective

Strengths: • SCI Pine Grove has both a Young Adult Offender Program (YAOP) as well as groups targeting adults. Youth under the age of 19.5 at the time they enter the institution are placed in the YAOP. The program currently serves participants ages 15-21. The facility has approximately 320 individuals currently in the YAOP. • There is a treatment manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for A Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. The same assessment process is utilized for both YAOP and adult populations. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • The program offers the Thinking for a Change groups for both the YAOP as well as their adult population. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. Length of group does not differ for the YAOP or adult populations. • The Thinking for a Change manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. The facilitators utilize the same curriculum and approach for both the YAOP and the adult groups. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Thinking for a Change groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. The facilitators modified examples used in the curriculum to make them more relevant to youth. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. Some facilitators utilize yard restrictions and cell restrictions. • There were clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they had established good rapport. Moreover, it appeared that the facilitators work to ensure all of the participants are active in group. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group.

264

• Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. The program manager utilizes the DOC program evaluation tool and provides the facilitator with feedback. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The treatment manager was not involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than clinical skills related to service delivery. • The treatment specialists do not meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and do not have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The facility and/or Camp Hill may wish to consider using the Youthful Level of Service/Case Management Inventory with its younger participants (e.g., those under 18 years of age). • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. Although the facilitators noted that the YAOP groups are more likely to start and end on time because the groups are run in the units. • Space is a problem with the YAOP groups. One of the groups observed was conducted in the middle of the pod which compromised the group atmosphere and the confidentiality of its participants. • The Thinking for a Change group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 12-15 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Thinking for a Change group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

265

SCI-Pine Grove Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.2% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 53.5% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • SCI Pine Grove has both a Young Adult Offender Program (YAOP) as well as groups targeting adults. Youth under the age of 19.5 at the time they enter the institution are placed in the YAOP. The program currently serves participants ages 15-21. The facility has approximately 320 individuals currently in the YAOP. • There is a treatment manager in place to oversee the treatment groups and supervise the treatment specialists. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention groups were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. The same assessment process is utilized for both YAOP and adult populations. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. The program offers the Violence groups for both the YAOP as well as their adult population. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 24 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. Length of group does not differ for the YAOP or adult populations. • The Violence Prevention manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. The facilitators utilize the same curriculum and approach for both the YAOP and the adult groups. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • The groups are facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. The facilitators modified examples used in the curriculum to make them more relevant to youth. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or sent back to their units. Some facilitators utilize yard restrictions and cell restrictions. • There were clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they had established good rapport. • Treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. Moreover, clients were required to practice skills in group.

266

• The Violence Prevention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. The program manager utilizes the DOC program evaluation tool and provides the facilitator with feedback. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The treatment manager was not involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon who volunteered for the job rather than clinical skills related to service delivery. • The treatment specialists do not meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and do not have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists formally meet only one time per month to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The facility and/or Camp Hill may wish to consider using the Youthful Level of Service/Case Management Inventory with its younger participants (e.g., those under 18 years of age). • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. Although the facilitators noted that the YAOP groups are more likely to start and end on time because the groups are run in the units. • While treatment specialists appear to have a good rapport with the participants, they should work to ensure that every client actively participates in each group. • Space is a problem with the YAOP groups. One of the groups observed was conducted in the middle of the pod which compromised the group atmosphere and the confidentiality of its participants. • The Violence Prevention group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 12-15 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • The Violence Prevention curriculum does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

267

SCI-Pine Grove Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 41.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.0% Ineffective Overall Content 47.3% Needs Improvement Overall Score 45.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • SCI Pine Grove has both a Young Adult Offender Program (YAOP) as well as groups targeting adults. Youth under the age of 19.5 at the time they enter the institution are placed in the YAOP. The program currently serves participants ages 15-21. The facility has approximately 320 individuals currently in the YAOP. • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The psychological services staff member meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and has at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. The assessment process is the same for both youth in the YAOP and the adult population. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. However, Pine Grove had very few adult sex offenders. As such, they allowed one adult offender YAOP SOP group. The same curriculum is used for both adult and youthful offenders. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • The high intensity program lasts approximately 18 months and the low intensity program approximately 6- 8 months. • The facilitator indicated that she follows the curriculum closely and gives and reviews homework in nearly every session. • The facilitator will assign a peer facilitator to a participant who is struggling to comprehend the material covered in group. Moreover, the facilitators modified examples used in the curriculum to make them more relevant to youth. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or lose points for the particular day. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established and she appeared to avoid arguments with the participants. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

268

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator does not provide consistent clinical supervision. • The current program coordinator was not responsible for selecting or approving group facilitators at the time of the assessment. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • The program utilizes the same Medlin curriculum for both youthful and adult offenders. The staff noted that the curriculum is too long for the youthful offender population given many of them are transferred out of the facility before they are able to complete the program. • While facilitator did participate in the 3-day Medlin curriculum training. However she had no experience in sex offender treatment and was given no mentoring (at the facility level) or additional training before she began facilitating groups. Moreover, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. On average groups start with approximately 13-14 participants. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. Moreover, alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

269

Figure 25a: SCI Pine Grove Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective

60 Effective Pi ne Grove 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

270

Figure 25b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Pine Grove (n=50) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0

80.0 79.2 78.1 76.0 78.0 80.0 72.0 73.2 66.0 61.2 61.3 60.0 55.1 Pine Grove 49.2

% All SCIs 40.0

20.0

0.0

Administration Supports TxTreatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx Staff Survey Question

271

SCI-Retreat Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.3% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 55.4% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

272

• The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators were not selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • There was not a consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

273

SCI-Retreat Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 62.9% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 68.3% Highly Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in criminal thinking. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. • The Thinking for a Change model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both.

274

• Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators were not selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

275

SCI-Retreat Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 50% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 60% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 61% Effective Overall Score 57.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • The Violence Prevention model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators have identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

276

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators were not selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

277

SCI-Retreat Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 80% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 41.2% Ineffective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective Overall Content 47.4% Needs Improvement Overall Score 52.8% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The program coordinator is involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in sex offender programming were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R, as well as the Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. • The sex offender programming model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Medlin manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • The sex offender program group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

278

• Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

279

Figure 26a: SCI Retreat Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Retreat 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

280

Figure 26b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Retreat (n=33) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0

79.2 78.1 75.8 75.8 80.0 72.7 73.2

61.2 63.6 61.3 60.0 Retreat All SCIs 49.2 48.5 45.5

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

281

SCI-Rockview Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 61.1% Effective Quality Assurance 20% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 64.2% Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Furthermore, group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • Both facilitators were active throughout the group. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are consistently and appropriately applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators.

282

• Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Batterers’ Intervention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was not consistently followed across group facilitators. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by all facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While Batterers’ Intervention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

283

SCI-Rockview Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 71.4% Highly Effective Quality Assurance 20% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 70.7% Highly Effective Overall Score 66.1% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Furthermore, group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for a Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Thinking for a Change manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Thinking for a Change groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are consistently and appropriately applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Skills are modeled and the benefits of learning a new skill are consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators.

284

• Thinking for a Change group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Thinking for a Change group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Each Thinking for a Change group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Thinking for a Change does not devote any sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

285

SCI-Rockview Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 62.9% Effective Quality Assurance 20% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 65.9% Highly Effective Overall Score 62.5% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • The program director is adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. Furthermore, group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group meets the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • Furthermore, Violence Prevention is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Violence Prevention groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants. • Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are consistently and appropriately applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators.

286

• Violence Prevention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Violence Prevention group teaches participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • Each Violence Prevention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in antisocial attitudes. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill are consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • While Violence Prevention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, the participants are not required to practice these. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

287

SCI-Rockview Sex Offender Programming--Therapeutic Community

CPC SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Leadership & Development 61.5% Effective Staff Characteristics 45.5% Ineffective Offender Assessment 73.3% Highly Effective Treatment Characteristics 36.4% Ineffective Quality Assurance 0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 40.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 47.9% Ineffective Overall Score 45.0% Ineffective

The following summary pertains to the TC option targeting mod/high intensity non-SNU clients. Both treatment and correctional staff were included in the assessment.

Strengths: • The program director is qualified with a Master’s degree and has been there for a little over 2 years. • The program director regularly conducts groups and individual counseling with clients. • There is evidence that the program and services are regularly piloted before full implementation. • The SOP program does not experience any difficulties with the at-large community. • Funding appears to be adequate to implement the program as designed. Additionally, it appears relatively stable over the past two years. • The TC program has been in operation for over 19 years. • Staff do meet the CPC criteria for education and experience. Additionally, staff are mainly selected for their skills and values related to the rehabilitative ideal. • Group facilitators assessed on skills related to service delivery by the clinical supervisor. • Ethical guidelines are in place for staff. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Although peer groups on the unit target areas that are mostly non-criminogenic, the primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self- management skills and relapse prevention. • The Medlin curriculum is used and followed for treatment groups. • Groups are separated by risk and the intensity of treatment varies by risk. Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles of offenders in the treatment groups. • Offenders can give input into the program through house meetings. • Program participants have criteria required for program completion including points, rating scales, and a test regarding program content. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group. • Aftercare is provided to the group participants through Aftercare group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The director is not actively involved in selecting, training, and supervising treatment staff who work within the sex offender program. • There was no evidence that the literature on effective interventions is consistently consulted and disseminated to staff. • The SOP TC program does not appear to be valued by all the staff at the facility.

288

• The SOP staff do not currently meet regularly for staff meetings. Furthermore, staff report little input into programming decisions. • The staff do not regularly receive clinical supervision. • Not all facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, nor are all staff trained in the theory and practice of Therapeutic Communities. Additionally, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery are inadequate. • Not all staff working with the SOP TC are supportive of treatment goals. • The program does not appear to be targeting only those that are higher risk, although the program has moved in this direction. • There was no evidence that the assessment tools have been validated on the population. • While the Medlin curriculum has some cognitive-behavioral components to it, the groups held on the TC are of a psychodynamic nature. • The participants in the TC are not separated from the rest of the institution at all times. • While the program participants attend treatment group once a week and have several therapeutic activities on the group, they are not involved in treatment related activities 40-70% of their time. • Staff are not matched to the program or program participants on factors identified through responsivity assessments. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards and punishers does not occur regularly across staff in the program. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across staff. • While some modeling or demonstration of prosocial skills occurs this does not occur on a regular basis across all facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills regularly throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • A staff member always conducts the Medlin groups, however, inmates facilitate the peer groups on the TC unit. • Groups do not meet the CPC criteria of 8-10 participants per staff, as not all groups are co-facilitated. • The program does not work with family members in any capacity. • While inmates can participate in the Aftercare group, there is no structured curriculum for this group. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • The program staff are not made aware of the recidivism rates of its participants. • The program has not been subjected to a formal evaluation.

289

Figure 27a: SCI Rockview Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Rockvi e w 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

290

Figure 27b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Rockview (n=212) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 72.0 71.1 73.2 67.5 61.2 61.3 57.5 60.0 52.9 Rockview All SCIs 49.2 50.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0

291

SCI-Smithfield Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 52.8% Effective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 54.8% Effective Overall Score 52.6% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Batterers’ Intervention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the BIP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • The primary focus of the Batterers’ Intervention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The Batterers’ Intervention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Group tended to begin and end on time and was routinely held the entire time scheduled. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Both of the co-facilitators were active in the group and given that groups were co-facilitated, the group size was appropriate. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants. • Batterers’ Intervention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, and addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each Batterers’ Intervention participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator plays a limited role in supervising treatment specialists. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The institution/stakeholders provide limited support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention programming. • Batterers’ Intervention fails to target at least 70% moderate to high risk offenders, based upon the LSI-R.

292

• While most offenders in the BIP group where moderate to high need based on the HIQ and LSI-R, this was not true for all participants. • The Duluth program model being used for BIP has been shown to be ineffective at reducing offending behavior. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • While skills training with corrective feedback is built in to the Batterers’ Intervention curriculum, offenders spent a significant amount of time having antisocial behaviors modeled to them via the videos and offenders would sometimes practice antisocial rather than just the prosocial alternatives. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance. • Use of prosocial alternatives to replace antisocial thinking was not routinely practiced in the program. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Group participants were not administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

293

SCI-Smithfield Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 57.1% Effective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 61.0% Effective Overall Score 57.1% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Thinking for a Change program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the CSS-M. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the TFC participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Thinking for a Change targets high risk offenders, based upon the LSI-R. • The primary focus of the Thinking for a Change program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used is an evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral model. • The Thinking for a Change facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Prosocial skills were regularly modeled in group. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants, and avoided argumentation. • Thinking for a Change sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, and addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each Thinking for a Change participant upon completion of the group.

294

• While most offenders in the TFC group where moderate to high need based on the CCS-M and LSI-R, this was not true for all participants. • Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • While skills training with corrective feedback is built in to the Thinking for a change curriculum, all participants are not required to practice each skill and offenders sometime practiced antisocial choices rather than just the prosocial alternatives. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Prosocial alternatives to antisocial thinking was not routinely practiced and reinforced in the program. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future criminal behaviors. • Thinking for a Change groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Group participants were not administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Thinking for a Change participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

295

SCI-Smithfield Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 54.3% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement Overall Content 58.5% Effective Overall Score 55.4% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the violence prevention program. • The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting treatment specialists. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using the LSI-R and the HIQ. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the VP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Violence prevention targets high need offenders, based upon the LSI-R and HIQ. • The primary focus of the violence prevention program is on criminogenic need areas. • The program model being used incorporates evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral elements. • The violence prevention facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. • Homework was consistently assigned and regularly reviewed by group facilitators. • Group norms were established via a pre-treatment contract. • The length of the group was sufficient to affect behavior change. • Group manuals were developed and followed and groups were consistently conducted by the facilitator. • Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension were consistently addressed by group facilitators. • Group facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance issues. • Prosocial skills were regularly modeled in group. • The facilitators had clearly established rapport and boundaries with the group participants, and avoided argumentation. • Violence prevention sessions target participant’s underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, and attempts to replace antisocial thinking with prosocial alternatives. • Staff complete discharge summaries for each violence prevention participant upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator plays a limited role in supervising treatment specialists. • Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e. bimonthly at minimum). • While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The institution/stakeholders provide limited support for the facilitation of violence prevention programming. • The program failed to target at least 70% moderate to high risk offenders.

296

• Due to institutional movement issues, group does not consistently start and end on time. • The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders. • The range of rewards and punishers used by the program was inadequate. • The application of rewards and punishers could be improved and the frequency of rewards does not outnumber punishers by a ratio of at least 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior were not regularly taught after a punisher was applied and facilitators did not consistently recognize and deal with possible negative effects of punishers. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills frequently enough throughout the group. Likewise, participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Antisocial thinking and values were not consistently addressed in the group. • Comprehensive relapse prevention plans were not developed to help decrease future violent behaviors. • Violence prevention groups were not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. • Group participants were not administered pre-post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Violence prevention participants were not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. • Objective completion criteria were not in place.

297

SCI-Smithfield Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 90.0% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100.0% Highly Effective Treatment 57.1% Effective Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective Overall Capacity 80.0% Highly Effective Overall Content 61.5% Effective Overall Score 66.7% Highly Effective

Strengths: • There was a program coordinator in place to oversee the groups being offered and to select or approve group facilitators. • The program coordinator provides direct supervision to facilitators and regular staff meetings are held. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements and are experienced in offender rehabilitation. • The group facilitators are selected for skills and values consistent with offender rehabilitation. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk group. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. • SOP treatment is based upon a cognitive-behavioral model. • The SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Groups were consistently conducted by the staff and staff encouraged group participation. • Group norms were established and followed. • SOP programming attempts to address responsivity issues by offering a group for special needs offenders and working individually with individuals who have difficulty comprehending the material. • Appropriate types and procedures for punishing unwanted behavior were in place. Likewise, facilitators responded appropriately to noncompliance. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, facilitators avoided argumentation and appeared to have good rapport with the offenders. • Risk or relapse prevention plans were developed and rehearsed. • A participant satisfactions survey is completed for each program graduate. • The program has objective completion criteria in place. • A discharge summary is written for each participant that completes SOP group.

298

• The group size was not consistently at or below the recommended ratio of 1 staff to 8-10 offenders, due to limited ability for group co-facilitation. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. Likewise, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s prosocial behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • New prosocial skills are not regularly modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • While participants do receive end of session exams, there is no pre-post testing used to gauge offender progress in treatment.

299

Figure 28a: SCI Smithfield Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Smithfield 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

300

Figure 28b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Smithfield (n=37) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0 86.5 81.1 78.1 79.2 80.0 73.0 73.2 67.6 61.2 61.3 60.0 54.1 Smithfield All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0 29.7 20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

301

SCI-Somerset Batterers’ Intervention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.7% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 54.3% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., approximately 6 months) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • Batterers’ groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The Batterers’ group size fit within the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15 participants. Both facilitators were active in group. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • Facilitators appear to promote prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior. The support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

302

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA experience requirements of having at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits or consistently required participants to practice behaviors. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

303

SCI-Somerset Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 50.0% Needs Improvement Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 60.0% Effective Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 53.3% Needs Improvement Overall Content 62.5% Effective Overall Score 60.0% Effective

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, the Thinking for A Change curriculum is considered evidenced based. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 22 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • The Thinking for a Change groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • Facilitators appear to promote prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior. The support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The facilitators do use role playing in groups. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

304

Areas that Need Improvement: • The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA experience requirements of having at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Thinking for a Change group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15 participants and only have one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

305

SCI-Somerset Violence Prevention

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 60.0% Effective Offender Assessment 83.3% Highly Effective Treatment 52.9% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 46.6% Needs Improvement Overall Content 56.1% Effective Overall Score 53.5% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a unit manager in place to oversee the treatment groups. • The unit manager was involved in selecting treatment specialists for their current positions. • The treatment specialists met the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in the Violence Prevention program were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, and TCU Motivation Scales. These assessments are conducted at Camp Hill but can be accessed by staff. • The major targets for Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and anger management. Furthermore, the violence prevention curriculum is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The length of group (e.g., 25 sessions) is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The manual appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Group facilitators appear knowledgeable about the treatment program and curriculum and encourage participation. • Regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, occurs consistently. • The Violence Prevention groups were facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants by pairing inmates together or meeting with clients individually. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings and/or loss of points for a day. • Facilitators appear to promote prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior. The support team meetings are used for particularly difficult clients. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants and they have established good rapport. Moreover, the facilitators appear to avoid arguments with the participants. • The manual has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and high risk situations. • Both pre and post-tests (i.e., CSSM & HIQ) are utilized to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

306

• The unit manager does not provide clinical supervision. • Not all of the treatment specialists met the CPC-GA experience requirements of having at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Treatment specialists were assigned to the treatment specialist position because no one else volunteered for the job. As a result, it is not clear that facilitators were selected based on group facilitation experience and skills. • Treatment specialists meet on an as-needed basis but not formally to review client progress. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional annual training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to security and movement issues. • The Violence Prevention group size does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15 participants and only have one facilitator. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior. • There was not sufficient evidence that all of the treatment specialists modeled appropriate skills and explained its benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • Group participants are not given sufficient opportunity to practice risk or relapse prevention plans. • The group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. Simply completing the prescribed number of sessions is not sufficient. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • The group participants do not complete a satisfaction survey at the end of group.

307

SCI-Somerset Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA SECTIONS SCORE RATING Program Staff and Support 40.0% Ineffective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 44.1% Ineffective Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective Overall Capacity 33.3% Ineffective Overall Content 50.0% Needs Improvement Overall Score 45.3% Ineffective

Strengths: • The program offers moderate-high and low intensity groups as well as aftercare. • The psychological services staff meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession and have at least 2 years of experience working with offenders in a treatment capacity. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The treatment programs appear to be supported by the institutional staff and administration although the staff did note that this has not always been the case. • There are exclusionary criteria in place for group participation and offenders appear appropriate for the services being offered. • Offender risk and need is assessed using both the LSI-R and the Static-99. They also conduct an interview that includes an evaluation of the offender’s offense details. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the SOP participants via tools such as the MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU-Treatment Motivation scales and PAI. The staff also consider personality and IQ when deciding whether to place in their special needs unit groups. • Sex offenders are separated by risk by offering a both a low and moderate-high risk groups. • The primary focus of the sex offender program is on criminogenic needs such as sexual deviance, cognitive distortions, self-management skills and relapse prevention. Furthermore, the Medlin program is based on some evidence based principles, however, there is limited research to supports its effectiveness. • Homework is regularly assigned and is consistently reviewed by the facilitator, with feedback provided to participants. • The group facilitators encouraged participant involvement by requiring active participation by all offenders. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. The participants are required to sign the form at the beginning of group. • The Medlin curriculum appears to be consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups were consistently conducted by the treatment staff. • The facilitators appear to respond appropriately in group to noncompliance such as not completing their homework or refusing to participate. Participants are normally given verbal warnings first but also may lose points for the particular day. • Boundaries between the facilitators and group participants appeared to be clearly established. Additionally, the current facilitators appeared to avoid arguments with participants. • SOP sessions target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs and participants are taught techniques for addressing high risk situations. • Each SOP group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program is currently without a Chief Psychologist that would oversee the treatment groups and supervise the psychological services staff or be involved in hiring decisions. • Group facilitators only attend formal staff meetings once a month.

308

• While facilitators have adequate initial training related to the group curriculum, the requirements for annual trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. • The SOP group size exceeds the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. Groups typically begin with 15 participants. • Not all of the SOP facilitators appeared knowledgeable of the material being taught. • Not all of the SOP facilitators had good rapport with their clients. Related, not all of the facilitators were committed to providing services for sex offenders. • The length of SOP groups, particularly for the moderate-high intensity groups was not clear. • The identification and application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • The application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The program does not have an adequate range of consequences for negative behavior. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not regularly taught after a punisher is applied. • New prosocial skills are not modeled, nor are the benefits of learning the new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group. • The facilitators do not appear to consistently model appropriate skills in groups and explain the skill’s benefits. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors or practice them in increasingly difficult situations. • While relapse plans are developed in Phase 7 of the SOP curriculum, they lack detail related to coping skills and offenders are not required to rehearse relapse prevention techniques. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not consistently surveyed as to their satisfaction in each group. • Group participants are not given pre-post tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • SOP group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender.

309

Figure 29a: SCI Somerset Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Somerset 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

10 Overall BIP SOP* 0 TFC VP

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

310

Figure 29b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Somerset (n=39) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229) 100.0

78.1 79.2 80.0 73.2 64.1 64.1 61.5 61.2 61.3 60.0 Somerset All SCIs 49.2 48.7

% 43.6

40.0 30.8 20.0

0.0

Administration Supports Tx Treatment Staff Support Tx Programs are Well-Organized Security/Custody Staff Support Tx Institution Provides Good Inmate Tx Prison Environment is Conducive to Tx

Staff Survey Question

311

SCI-Waymart Batterers’ Intervention

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Batterers’ Intervention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Batterers’ Intervention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The group does meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • The major targets for the Batterers’ Intervention group are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, promoting family communication, and anger management. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Batterers’ Intervention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • Batterers’ Intervention groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The Batterers’ Intervention group size meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Facilitators regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and group participants. • Arguments with group participants are avoided consistently across facilitators. • Batterers’ Intervention group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each Batterers’ Intervention group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

Areas that Need Improvement:

312

• The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • The program director is not adequately involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • Group facilitators do not attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Not all offenders participating in Batterers’ Intervention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • The Duluth Model for Batterers’ Intervention is not considered an evidenced based intervention. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was not a consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback, in Batterers’ Intervention Groups. • There was not consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • Group facilitators did not appear to attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participants, nor was there any indication that responsivity assessment results were used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the Batterers’ Intervention group. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are not consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Group facilitators are not teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While Batterers’ Intervention devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Batterers’ Intervention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion.

313

SCI-Waymart Thinking for a Change

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 55.6% Effective Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 57.1% Effective Overall Score 57.9% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Thinking for a Change. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Thinking for a Change were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets for Thinking for a Change are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills. Furthermore, Thinking for A Change is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • There was consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Thinking for a Change manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Participants are required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

314

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Thinking for a Change were identified as having moderate to high need in criminal thinking. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Thinking for a Change group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion

315

SCI-Waymart Violence Prevention

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 66.7% Highly Effective Treatment 48.6% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 51.2% Needs Improvement Overall Score 53.6% Needs Improvement

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of Violence Prevention. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in Violence Prevention were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • The major targets of Violence Prevention are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, anger, and conflict resolution. • The Violence Prevention model is considered an evidenced based intervention. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • Group facilitators consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The length of group is sufficient to affect target behaviors. • The Violence Prevention manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught after a punisher is applied. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • Group participants are administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement: • The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators.

316

• Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA criteria requiring at least 70% of participants score moderate to high risk on the LSI-R. • Not all offenders participating in Violence Prevention were identified as having moderate to high need in aggression. • Groups do not consistently begin and end on time, which appears primarily related to movement issues. • The group does not meet the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Violence Prevention group does not have clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender—only based on attendance and homework completion

317

SCI-Waymart Outpatient Sex Offender Programming

CPC-GA Sections Score Rating Program Staff and Support 70% Highly Effective Offender Assessment 100% Highly Effective Treatment 48.6% Needs Improvement Quality Assurance 40% Ineffective Overall Capacity 60% Effective Overall Content 53.8% Needs Improvement Overall Score 55.6% Effective

Strengths: • There is a program coordinator in place to oversee management of the groups. • The program director is involved in the selection or approval of group facilitators. • The group facilitators meet the CPC-GA requirement of working in treatment programs with offenders for at least two years. • Group facilitators were selected for skills and values consistent with rehabilitation. • Group facilitators attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bi-monthly meetings at minimum). • Ethical guidelines are in place for group facilitators. • The institution/stakeholders provide overall support for the facilitation of sex offender programming. • PA DOC has developed a matrix to place offenders in groups based upon risk and need. Similarly, the offenders placed in sex offender programming were deemed appropriate by the group facilitators. • The risk and needs level is consistently assessed using the LSI-R, as well as the Static-99. Additional needs are assessed using the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire. • Responsivity factors are assessed for many of the offenders participating in treatment via tools such as the PAI, MMPI, WRAT, BETA, TCU Motivation Scales, and PAI. • Some of the targets for Medlin: Responsible Living are criminogenic and include the following: antisocial attitudes, problem solving, conflict resolution, relapse prevention and social skills. Furthermore, Medlin: Responsible Living is considered an evidenced based treatment. • Groups consistently begin and end on time. • Facilitators appeared comfortable facilitating group and there was a consistent demonstration of clear knowledge of the curriculum content. • There was consistent, regular assignment of homework, along with review and feedback. • Group norms and expectations are established for each group and followed. • The Medlin manual was consistently followed across group facilitators. • Groups are consistently facilitated by staff from beginning to end. • The group meets the CPC-GA requirement of no more than 8-10 participants per facilitator. • Group facilitators attempt to address the different learning styles and barriers of the participant. • Facilitators consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote prosocial behavior within the group. • Potential negative effects produced by a punishment are consistently recognized or addressed across facilitators. • Rapport between the facilitator and group participants is clearly established across facilitators. • The group has several sessions that target participants’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. • Group facilitators are teaching participants how to address antisocial thinking and identify high risk situations, providing coping and management techniques for both. • The sex offender program group has clearly outlined criteria as to when the program terminates for each offender. • Each group participant is required to have a discharge summary upon completion of the group.

Areas that Need Improvement:

318

• The program coordinator is not involved in providing direct supervision to group facilitators. • Not all group facilitators meet the CPC-GA educational requirements of an Associate’s degree or higher in a helping profession. • While facilitators receive adequate initial training related to group curricula, the requirements for additional yearly training related to service delivery is inadequate. • Group facilitators did not consistently encourage participation by all members of the group. • There was not consistent participation by both co-facilitators in group. • Results from responsivity assessments were not used by the facilitators. • Facilitators have not identified a range of appropriate rewards to use within the context of the group. • Additionally, the application of rewards does not outnumber the application of punishers by at least a ratio of 4 to 1. • The application of appropriate rewards does not occur regularly in the group. • Appropriate punishers are not used to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Facilitators do not regularly respond to matters of noncompliance. • Punishers are not consistently applied to extinguish antisocial expressions and promote behavioral change consistently across facilitators. • Alternatives to inappropriate behavior are not taught after a punisher is applied. • Skills are neither modeled nor are the benefits of learning a new skill consistently explained by facilitators. • Participants are not required to practice and rehearse alternative prosocial skills throughout the group consistently across facilitators. • Participants do not consistently practice new prosocial behaviors in increasingly difficult situations. • Boundaries between the facilitator and group participants were not clearly established. • Arguments with group participants are not consistently avoided across facilitators. • Participants are not directly and consistently taught techniques to replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. • While the group devotes some sessions to developing risk or relapse prevention plans, participants are not required to practice relapse prevention techniques or plans. • Group facilitators are not regularly observed and evaluated with regard to service delivery skills. • Participants are not formally surveyed as to their satisfaction with the group. • Group participants are not administered both pre and post-tests to assess changes in target behaviors.

319

Figure 30a: SCI Waymart Compared to PADOC

100 Percentage 90

70 Highly Effective 60 Effective Waymart 50 PADOC Needs Improvement 40

30 Ineffective

0 Overall TFC BIP VP SOP*

*Sex Offender Scores include both outpatient and therapeutic community programs if applicable.

320

Figure 30b: Staff Survey Results of SCI Waymart (n=22) Compared to All SCI Respondents (N=1229)

100.0 90.9 86.4 86.4 81.8 81.8 78.1 79.2 77.3 80.0 73.2

61.2 61.3 60.0 Waymart All SCIs 49.2

% 40.0

20.0

0.0