the use of core correctional practices in ...december 2005, wv’s correctional population was over...

Mountain State Criminal JusticeMountain State Criminal JusticeMountain State Criminal JusticeMountain State Criminal JusticeMountain State Criminal JusticeResearch ServicesResearch ServicesResearch ServicesResearch ServicesResearch Services

Introduction....................................................... 1The Use of Inmate Surveys to AssessPrison Performance ................................... 3The Role of Transitional Services inOffender Reentry......................................... 5Transitional Phase: Ensuring theContinuation of Offender ReentryServices ..................................................... 5The Use of Core Correctional Practices inthe Delivery of Offender ReentryServices ..................................................... 7Core Correctional Practices and EffectiveService Delivery ......................................... 9

Data and Methods ............................................ 11Data Collection .......................................... 11Sample Description ................................... 13Measures ................................................... 14

Results ............................................................. 19Use of Core Correctional Practices byCorrectional Staff for the Total Sample ..... 19The WVORI and the Delivery ofTransitional Services ................................. 26Prisoner Attitudes and Expectationsfor After Release ........................................ 32Prisoner “Preparedness for Release”and the Application of Core CorrectionalPractices .................................................... 35

Discussion and Conclusions ............................. 40

References ...................................................... 44

THE USE OF CORE CORRECTIONAL PRACTICES INOFFENDER REENTRY: THE DELIVERY OF TRANSITIONAL

SERVICES AND PRISONER PREPAREDNESS FOR RELEASE

May, 2007

West Virginia Division of Corrections

INTRODUCTION

1

West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III

The substantial increase in incarceration in WestVirginia and across the nation over the past two decadeshas turned the attention of policymakers toward theconsequences of releasing large numbers of prisonersback into society. As prison populations continue torise, more and more offenders are making the transitionfrom prison to the community every day. The U.S. prisonpopulation continues to grow at startling rates each year.According to a recent publication released by theBureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number ofpersons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails reacheda record high of 2,186,230 inmates by midyear 2005(Harrison and Beck, 2006). This record number ofpersons in our nation’s prisons and jails has resultedin more prisoners than ever before being released fromincarceration. In 2004, 672,202 sentenced inmateswere released from state prisons in the U.S., resultingin an increase of 11.1% since 2000 (Harrison and Beck,2006).

WV has also experienced tremendous growth inthe number of inmates confined in state correctionalfacilities. Between 1995 and 2005, WV had the secondfastest growing prison population in the nation. As ofDecember 2005, WV’s correctional population was overtwo and one-half times its size in 1993 (Lester andHaas, 2006). At the end of 2006, a record 5,312prisoners comprised WV’s state correctional population.With the ever growing prison population, however, thereis increased pressure on the part of prisonadministrators and parole board members to getoffenders out of custody and into the community. As aconsequence, this has led to a greater number of

2WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III

releases and has further highlighted the need to identifyeffective reentry strategies and services.

Both parole grant rates and the number of prisonersbeing released from state prisons in WV have increasedin recent years. Between 2004 and 2005, there was a10.0% increase in the number of cases being grantedparole, which was the largest percent increase in parolegrant rates since 2000 (Lester and Haas, 2006). Thegrowth in the prison population, coupled with theincrease in parole grant rates, has resulted in manymore prisoners being released into our communities.In fact, in the first half of this decade the number ofprisoners released from WVDOC custody increasedby 68.8%, from 1,336 inmates released in 2000 to 2,157in 2005 (Lester and Haas, 2006).

The sheer number of WV prisoners reenteringsociety has further underscored the need for effectivetransitional services. Prior research has shown thatupon release from prison, these ex-offenders willencounter many barriers to successful reintegration asthey try to reenter society. These barriers to reentrycan manifest themselves in seemingly basic or practicalneeds of offenders (e.g., having social security cardsreissued, obtaining a driver’s license, securing socialor veteran benefits, etc.) or more arduous problemsassociated with mental illness or substance abuseissues. Unfortunately, the extent to which offendersare successful in dealing with these known barriers toreintegration will ultimately determine whether or notthey will return to the criminal justice system. As aresult, the West Virginia Division of Corrections(WVDOC) developed a comprehensive offenderreentry program with the anticipation that it wouldsignificantly reduce the number of barriers that offenderswill have to face upon release and thereby increasetheir chances for successful reintegration.

The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative(WVORI) is designed to provide a continuum of reentryservices to offenders as they transition from prison tothe community. Similar to other reentry programs, akey aspect of the WVORI is its focus on providingtransitional services to inmates preparing for release.While offender reentry services begin as the inmate isadmitted into the institution, this report centers on thecommunity-based transition phase. During thetransitional phase of the WVORI, correctional staff workclosely with each other and the inmate to provide pre-release services in an effort to prepare the offender forrelease while identifying available community resourcesand programs to address the individual offender’s needsafter release. Thus, a central purpose of the currentstudy is to examine the extent to which these servicesare reaching a sample of prisoners nearing release.

As part of a broader process evaluation, however,this report is equally interested in examining the qualityof services that are being provided to inmates. Whilemany researchers rush to examine whether reentryprograms will lead to reductions in recidivism, there isalso an enduring need to study whether these programsare being delivered in a manner that can be expectedto work (i.e., reduce recidivism). Indeed, there is agrowing body of research which illustrates that howthings are done may be as important as what is done.In fact, emerging empirical evidence suggests that howcorrectional services are delivered can have asubstantive effect on offender outcomes (Leschied,2000). Accordingly, this report also examines howreentry services are being delivered to a sample ofsoon-to-be-released prisoners.

More specifically, this study assesses whetheroffender reentry services are being delivered in amanner that is consistent with key core correctionalpractices that have been identified in research. Andrewsand Kiessling (1980) identified five dimensions ofeffective correctional intervention, also referred to ascore correctional practices (CCPs), that when appliedproperly can enhance the therapeutic potential ofcorrectional interventions and reduce offenderrecidivism. In essence, CCPs specify the staffcharacteristics and nature of staff-inmate relationshipsthat have been found to be associated with correctionalinterventions that have produced the greatest reductionsin recidivism (Dowden and Andrews, 2004). Moreover,this study is interested in assessing the relationshipbetween these practices and inmate preparedness forrelease. It is anticipated that when prisoners receivetransitional services, in a manner that is consistent withthe use of CCPs they will report being better preparedfor life after release.

This report is the third in a series of researchpublications designed to convey the results of anongoing process evaluation of the WVORI. As noted inprevious reports, the central purpose of the evaluationis to systematically evaluate the WVORI in terms ofcoverage and delivery. That is, to determine the extentto which the offender reentry initiative is reaching itsintended target population and to assess the degree ofcongruence between the reentry program plan andactual service delivery. To achieve this objective, thecurrent report utilizes inmate survey data to assessthe extent to which transitional services are reachingprisoners who are within 90 days of possible release.The delivery of transitional services and the applicationof CCPs are examined across two types of institutions– state-operated work release centers and generalpopulation correctional facilities. Thus, this report

3 Core Correctional Practices and Service Delivery

begins with a brief discussion on the use of inmatesurvey data in the assessment of prison conditions andservices.

The Use of Inmate Surveys to Assess PrisonPerformance

To achieve the broader goal of the current processevaluation (i.e., to evaluate the implementation of theWVORI in terms of coverage and delivery), we havechosen to use multiple data sources includingcorrectional staff surveys, institutional records, andinmate surveys. For the first two reports, for instance,a staff survey methodology was utilized to examine theattitudes and orientation of staff as well as theapplication of key components of the WVORI (seeHaas, Hamilton, and Hanley, 2005; 2006). Moreover,an upcoming report is designed to use inmate recordsderived from WVDOC’s Integrated ManagementInformation System (IMIS) to explore additional issuesrelated to offender responsivity and the delivery ofreentry service delivery. The larger process evaluationuses a combination of approaches and data sourcesto examine the extent to which the WVORI has beenfully implemented in accordance with the OffenderReentry Program Plan developed by the WVDOC.

With that said, the current report uses inmate surveydata to assess the extent to which transitional servicesare reaching inmates. We also explore the relationshipbetween the mechanisms by which transitionalservices are delivered and inmate preparedness forrelease. A typical concern for many prisonadministrators, however, is that inmate responses willexaggerate or misrepresent reality in order to make itappear that prison officials and staff are not doing theirjobs. This is also of concern for researchers interestedin obtaining an unbiased representation of prisonconditions and operational practices in correctionalfacilities. While this is certainly a legitimate concernfor both prison administrators and researchers alike,recent research is beginning to shed light on thereliability and validity of inmate survey data.

First it is important to point out that inmate surveysare commonly used to study a wide range of issues incorrections. These include but are not limited to suchtopics as the criminal history and other characteristicsof inmates (Harlow, 2001; Robinson, Muirhead, andLefaive, 1997), health and medical conditions of inmates(Bellatty and Grossnickle, 2004; Lariviere and Robinson,1999); prison adjustment issues of inmates(VanVoorhis, 1994; Warren, Hurt, Loper, and Chauhan,2004), prison victimization (Edgar, 1998; Maitland, 1996;McCorkle, 1993; O’Donnell, 1998), as well as the prisonenvironment (Gillespie, 2005; Hemmens and Marquart,

1999; Lutze, 1998; Wright, 1993). Likewise, given thefocus on offender reentry in recent years inmate surveyshave been used to examine the experiences of inmatesprior to and during incarceration as well as theirexpectations for release (Hamlyn and Lewis, 2000;Niven and Olagundoye, 2002; Visher, La Vigne, andCastro, 2003). However, it is only within the pastdecade that researchers have turned their attention tothe reliability and validity issues that surround the useof inmate surveys.1

Interestingly, it is the topic of public versus privateprisons which has been a focus of research in recentyears that has generated some data on the use ofinmate surveys (Camp, 1999; Camp, Gaes, Klein-Saffran, Daggett, and Saylor, 2002; Logan, 1992).These studies compare private and public facilities onvarious dimensions related to quality of confinement(e.g., prison security and safety, order, care, activity,justice, conditions, job assignments, and management)and other operational characteristics (e.g., gang activity,

1 It is also important to note that survey data collected fromprisoners have other advantages. They are less costlycompared to direct observations or audits and can beadministered at multiple institutions in a relatively short periodof time.

Report Highlights...

The primary purpose for transitional planningand services is to reduce potential barriers tosuccessful reintegration.

During the community-based transition phase,the inmate’s assigned case supervisor worksin conjunction with the inmate and his/her paroleofficer to develop transition plans in preparationfor release.

Service delivery practices should be consistentwith the principle of general responsivity.

While responsivity factors may not be directlyrelated to recidivism per se, they do embody anumber of non-criminogenic needs that maymoderate the efficacy of correctionalinterventions.

Emerging empirical evidence suggests that howcorrectional services are delivered can promoteeffective outcomes in correctional practice.


safety and security, sanitation, and food servicedelivery). In general, the conclusion drawn from thesestudies is that inmate surveys can be effectively usedto obtain information about operational differencesbetween prisons.

For instance, in an analysis of data from the 1997Survey of Inmates in State and Federal CorrectionalFacilities conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS), Camp (1999) examined the issues of prisonsafety, noise, and job assignments. A total of 3,167male inmates housed in 32 different prisons participatedin the study. The primary purpose was to determinewhether inmates assessed their conditions ofconfinement differently and the extent to which thevariation in inmate evaluations were due to differencesamong prisons. Based on the results of this study,Camp (1999) concluded that inmate responsessystematically fluctuated at different U.S. federal prisonsin a manner that supported the notion that inmatesurveys can be reliably used to obtain information aboutprison conditions across facilities.

In a more recent study utilizing data gathered bythe Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Camp and his colleagues(2002) compared one private prison with three publicprisons. Hierarchical linear models were used to identifyand assess prison performance measures in the areasof safety and security, food delivery services, sanitation,and gang activity. The results uncovered a great dealof agreement between staff and inmate surveyresponses. According to Camp et al., (2002), thefindings strongly suggested that there is merit to usinginmates to evaluate conditions at prisons. In fact, theauthors concluded that if they had relied solely oncorrectional staff input, they would not have been ableto construct reliable performance measures. As such,an evaluation of prison conditions across institutionswould not have been possible. Nonetheless, this studyfound that inmate and staff evaluations of specificprison conditions (i.e., sanitation in the dining hall andhousing units) were highly congruent (Camp et al.,2002).

While these studies do not offer definitiveconclusions on the applicability of inmate surveys to alltopics, they do suggest that data derived from prisonersmay yield useful information on prison conditions. Thesestudies clearly provide evidence that inmate survey datacan be used to identify reliable measures thatdifferentiate prison performance. Likewise, thesestudies illustrate that there is considerable agreementbetween inmates and correctional staff and theirevaluations of specific prison conditions. Camp et al.(2002), for instance, concluded that inmate survey datamay deserve better treatment than the distrust they often

receive from prison administrators. The authors note,however, that it is important to identify and developsurvey items that are relevant to and appropriate forthe sample being studied. Moreover, inmate surveydata should never replace operational reviews andaudits nor should they become the only source of dataused to assess prison performance (Camp et al.,2002).

The prison experience, including the attitudes,values, and behaviors of incarcerated offenders, isshaped in large part by the psycho-social environmentwithin an institution (Goffman, 1967; Clemmer, 1940;Wheeler, 1969). In a recent review of the prisonresearch on the psycho-social environment of prison,Howell (2000: 8) states that, “It includes, but is notexhausted by concepts of prisonization, inmatesubculture, staff perceptions of and attitudes towardsinmates, staff-prisoner relationships, inmateperceptions of and attitudes towards staff, broaderinmate perceptions of the prison environment, [and]organizational definitions of values and roles”. Althoughvery little empirical research has investigated therelationship between PSE and recidivism, previousresearch has demonstrated a relationship betweeninmate perceptions of PSE and prison adaptation,disciplinary infractions and institutional treatmentoutcomes (MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1986; Porporinoand Zamble, 1984; Toch, 1977; Wooldredge, 1999;Wright, 1993). These findings suggest that the socialenvironment of the prison may ultimately impact aninmate’s successful reintegration.

While previous studies on core correctional practicehave used observations of staff skills and theirinteraction with inmates and compared the use of CCPsto offender outcomes, this study used inmate surveyresponses to measure these essential skills andqualities of correctional staff. Since CCPs are rootedin staff characteristics and the staff-inmate relationship,the use of inmate survey data provides a direct measureof whether these practices are perceived to be operatingin the prison environment or correctional setting.Moreover, due to the broad applicability of CCPs to bothfront-line correctional officers as well as treatment staff,inmates have ample opportunity to evaluate theirenvironment as well as staff characteristics and thequality of interactions they have with staff. Inmate ratingsof core correctional practice are valid indicators ofcorrectional staff practices because it is the inmate’sperceptions that ultimately impact his/her notions ofreadiness for release. Therefore, it is anticipated thatservice delivery as measured by indicators of corecorrectional practice will be positively related to inmates’

5 Core CorrectionalPractices and Service Delivery

expectations upon release and their self-appraisedpreparedness for release.

It is also important to note that we are examininginmate perceptions related to both core correctionalpractice and expectations and preparedness for release.In the case of core correctional practices, it is arguedthat the perceptions of inmates can truly matter in termsof their expectations for release and potentially for laterrecidivism. In other words, it matters little if the effectiveuse of authority is judged by research staff to be present,when it is the inmate’s perception that ultimately impactsthe measured outcomes. This study examines theextent to which the perceived absence or presence ofcore correctional practices impacts inmatepreparedness for release. Future analyses will assessthe relationship between CCPs, inmate expectationsfor release, and reentry outcomes.

The Role of Transitional Services in Offender ReentryImplemented in July 2004, the West Virginia

Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) was designed toprovide a continuum of reentry services to offendersas they transition from prison to the community. Similarto reentry initiatives throughout the country, the WVORIincludes an institutional phase, a transition period fromthe institution to parole services, and a communityreintegration phase. Extensive institution-basedprograms, enhanced relationships between institutionstaff and parole personnel and strong offender ties withcommunity support systems, characterize these threephases. The primary goal of the WVORI is to develop acase management system that ensures the continuityof services and programming from the time the offenderenters secure confinement until the offender isultimately reintegrated back into the community.

Previous components of a larger process evaluationof the WVORI focused on the institutional phase of thereentry initiative, whereas the current study examinesphase II or the transitional phase of the WVORI (SeeHaas, Hamilton, and Hanley, 2005; 2006). The previousstudies examined the attitudes and orientation ofcorrectional staff primarily charged with the day-to-dayimplementation of the WVORI. The first reportexamined the pre-implementation attitudes, orientationsand support for the WVORI. The second reportexamined post-implementation attitudes andorientations, support for the WVORI, as well as supportand implementation of essential components of theWVORI (i.e., the LSI-R and the prescriptive casemanagement system).

The current study examines the extent to which thetransitional services delivered to pre-release inmatesare consistent with the WVORI’s transitional phase and

the extent to which services are delivered in a mannerconsistent with evidence-based practices. Additionalanalysis examines the extent to which inmateperceptions of the quality of service delivery (asmeasured by the presence of core correctionalpractice) are related to inmate self-appraisals ofpreparedness for release.

Transitional Phase: Ensuring the Continuation ofOffender Reentry Services

Phase II of the WVORI focuses on preparingoffenders for making the transition from the institutionalsetting to parole supervision in the community. Theprimary purpose for transitional planning and servicesis to reduce potential barriers to successfulreintegration. This phase is characterized by increasedinvolvement and cooperation between casesupervisors, parole officers and inmates. Thisincreased collaboration is designed to systematicallyprepare the offender for release while identifyingavailable community resources and programs toaddress the individual offender’s needs. To assist inthis process, an assessment of each offender’s risklevel and specific needs is repeated at this phase.

Phase II provides an array of pre-release servicesto assist offenders with reentry. These services includereassessment and development of an aftercare plan,an infectious disease course, a parole orientationcourse, and the scheduling of regular contacts withcase managers and parole officers. In addition, thisphase serves to link the offender to various communityprograms such as educational and/or vocational trainingprograms, substance abuse treatment, employmentservices, and religious or faith-based services. It isanticipated that these pre-release services andtransition programs will not only prepare the offenderfor release but will help to reduce the likelihood ofreoffending. Phase II begins six months prior to releasefrom the institution, and continues through the offender’sparole supervision.

Pre-parole ServicesAll WVDOC inmates participate in transitional

planning prior to release. The inmate’s assigned casesupervisor works in conjunction with the inmate andhis/her parole officer to develop transition plans inpreparation for release. In order to facilitate transitionplanning, the inmate’s individual reentry plan should beupdated three months prior to his/her established paroleor discharge eligibility date. This update includes suchitems as: social support systems, continued treatment,housing needs, financial support, employment,transportation, issues regarding court ordered

commitments (i.e. child support, restitution, fines, etc.),and any additional concerns or needs of the offender.Also in preparation for release and reentry planning aninmate should be reassessed for risk utilizing the Levelof Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version (LSI-R: SV). The reassessment results assist the casesupervisor and parole officer in identifying areas of needto target for reentry services.

The paroling authority is provided with a progressreport of the inmate’s activities in the institution and aproposed parole plan (i.e., parole release plan). Releasepreparation also involves assisting inmates withdeveloping a home plan prior to their parole interview.In fact, a common barrier to successful reentry is thedifficulty in finding a suitable place to live (Taxman,Young, and Byrne, 2002; Visher, LaVigne and Castro,2003). Moreover, many release requirements are nowgeared toward identifying and restricting the placeswhere sex offenders may live (Petersilia, 2001). Whileit is primarily the inmate’s responsibility to develop asuitable home plan, case managers are expected towork closely with inmates to aid in finding a safe andsecure living arrangement that is conducive to living apro-social life. A copy of the inmate’s most recentindividual reentry plan, pre-parole report, and a parolerelease plan are furnished to the parole board prior toan inmate’s parole hearing.

In addition, all inmates who are eligible for paroleand/or discharge are required to complete a pre-paroleorientation course and an infectious disease educationcourse prior to release. Medical and/or mental healthadvocacy/referrals are supposed to be made on behalfof those inmates with chronic medical or mental healthissues prior to their parole or discharge eligibility date.

Aftercare ServicesTraditionally, aftercare has consisted of supervision

and services provided by parole officers within thecommunity and generally involved little or no planning.However, with the inception of “re-entry,” aftercareplanning precedes release and provides some stabilityto the transitioning inmate. Stability during transition isessential for successful reentry (Taxman et al., 2002).Many offenders have been incarcerated for a numberof years and subsequently have limited knowledge ofexisting community resources and weakened supportsystems within the community. Therefore, it is importantto enhance the stability of transitioning inmates bypreparing the inmate for release by linking the him/herto programs and services within the community. Asnoted previously, the WVORI is designed to provide acontinuum of services extending from the institution tothe community. Aftercare is also the point where

advocacy and referral are especially important to theoffender. It is the role of the facility-based casesupervisor and the parole officer to jointly locate,advocate, and refer inmates to those services andprograms as needed. While the responsibility forcarrying out the aftercare plan rests on the offender,the primary responsibility of monitoring compliancerests with the parole officer.

Aftercare Plan. The aftercare plan serves as asupplement to the individual reentry program plan.While the individual reentry program plan focuses onthe accomplishment of specific goals and objectives,

WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III 6

Figure 1. Summary of Offender ReentryAftercare Services

• Information on how to obtain a new/re-issuedsocial security card

• Information on how to contact the DMVregarding their driver’s license or how to apply fora state issued picture ID card.

• Information about whether or not they mayqualify for food stamps and/or Social Securitybenefits.

• Assistance in submitting the paperwork forreinstatement of Social Security Income or SocialSecurity Disability Income for potentially eligibleinmates.

• Enrollment in Job Service website for inmateswho made need employment assistance.

• Referrals to or follow-up appointments formental or physical health care (referrals shouldonly be may by qualified mental and physicalhealth care providers).

• Information about registration with the SelectiveService.

• Information on how to obtain an official copy oftheir birth certificate.

• Linkage and referral to educational resources,including providing assistance with completing/submitting the FAFSA for federal and/or statefinancial aid eligibility.

7 Core CorrectionalPractices and Service Delivery

the aftercare plan is an action guide, with contactinformation, relating to the program resources outlined.It is a document that offenders can take with them, referback to, and generally use as a guide. Programresources and services that will be especially beneficialto an offender upon release will be listed, with theappropriate contact information and scheduledappointments, on the aftercare plan, a copy of which isprovided to the offender. Aftercare plan post-releasefollow-up is a function of parole officers. Figure 1provides a list of the other services to be included aspart of the aftercare plan.

Community Contacts/Referrals. Communitycontacts and referrals should include a minimum ofthe services identified above as well as any referralsspecific to an inmate’s individual needs. As notedpreviously, mental/medical health referrals should bemade prior to release. Inmates with mental health ormedical needs have been dependent upon the WVDOCfor providing this type of necessary care, often for anumber of years; thus there is generally heightenedconcern to connect the inmate with such essentialservices prior to release. Moreover, nationally theconcern regarding mental and medical health careneeds has garnered much focus due to the fact thatmany state legislatures have implemented stricterpenalties in this era of “get tough” on crime policies(Petersilia, 2001). The resulting sentences are longerand often determinate in nature in many cases whichultimately means an increasing proportion of the inmatepopulation will require geriatric care prior to release.

Employment for offenders returning to communitiesis one of the most vital components to successfulreentry (Petersilia, 2001; Taxman et al., 2002). TheWVORI provides a number of employment services totransitioning inmates. Prior to release case supervisorswill assist transitioning inmates with enrolling in the Mid-Atlantic Consortium Center (MACC), a web-baseddatabase for employment services in West Virginia.Moreover, transitioning inmates may also be referredto One Stop Centers in their community for employmentservices. Referrals to One Stop Centers will bedocumented on the individual reentry program plan andthe aftercare plan.

For offenders returning to communities, identificationand restoration of drivers’ licenses are linchpins to theirsuccessful reintegration. Official photo identification iscritical to offenders attempting to obtain employment,provide proof of identity to open banking accounts, obtainpublic assistance, and similar functions. Obtainingdrivers’ licenses is vital to ensuring that offenders havethe means to travel for employment, treatment, andother scheduled appointments. This is particularly

important given the limited access to publictransportation services throughout the State. The WestVirginia Division of Corrections and the West VirginiaDivision of Motor Vehicles have entered into aninteragency agreement to better provide these servicesto transitioning inmates.

The Use of Core Correctional Practices in theDelivery of Offender Reentry Services

A central focus of the current study is to examinethe degree of congruence between the reentry plan andactual service delivery. Previous research has shownthat evaluation of correctional programs must measureservice delivery in order to draw meaningful conclusionsregarding a program’s success (e.g., Van Voorhis etal., 1995). Furthermore, it has been noted that treatmentfailures are often the result of programs that did notoccur. That is, a program’s design may include effectivetherapeutic models and methods for appropriatelyidentifying targets; however, if service delivery isineffective, then treatment outcome may ultimately becompromised. Thus, an important part of the currentprocess evaluation is to measure components ofservice delivery. Specifically, the current study isdesigned to measure what transitional services weredelivered to pre-release inmates and the degree towhich those services were delivered in a mannerconsistent with effective service delivery (i.e., howservices are delivered).

Principles of Effective InterventionA growing body of empirical research addressing

“what works” in correctional settings, often referred toas the principles of effective intervention, has identifieda number of program components likely to have animpact on overall program success. For instance,research has found that correctional programsconsistent with the principles of effective interventionare correlated with significantly reduced recidivismrates, with an average reduction of 26% to 30%(Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990; Andrews, Zinger, etal., 1990; Antonowicz and Ross, 1994; Dowden andAndrews, 2004; Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998).Many of the indicators of effective correctional programscan be grouped into the following categories fordiscussion: effective classification, effective programcharacteristics, and effective service delivery.

Effective classification. Effective classificationrequires adherence to the Risk-Need-Responsivity(RNR) model through the use of an empirically basedrisk assessment instrument that demonstratespredictive validity with correctional populations andincludes measures of risk, need, and responsivity, for


example the LSI-R or the LS/CMI assessmentinstruments (Bonta, 2002). The RNR model embodiesthe three core principles of the principles of effectiveintervention (i.e., risk, need, and responsivity). Theunderlying premise of this approach is that the majorpredictors of criminal behavior can be empiricallyidentified and then targeted for change throughcorrectional interventions (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000).The RNR model essentially specifies the who, what,and how of effective correctional intervention. The riskprinciple identifies who should be targeted forintervention services, the need principle identifies whatintermediate targets or criminogenic needs should beaddressed, and the responsivity principle identifies howcorrectional interventions should be delivered.

The risk principle refers to matching correctionalinterventions to the level of risk. That is reservingintensive interventions for high-risk offenders andproviding limited services to low and moderate riskoffenders (Andrews, et al., 1990; Dowden and Andrews,1999). Appropriate adherence to the risk principleincludes the use of empirically validated assessmentinstruments like the LSI-R. The need principle refersto targeting for change the intermediate targetspredictive of crime and recidivism, for example, criminalassociates, pro-criminal and anti-conventional attitudes,educational and vocational skill deficits, and substanceabuse issues.

The responsivity principle states that styles andmodes of treatment service must be matched to thelearning style and abilities of the offender (Andrews etal., 1990). The responsivity principle is further specifiedin terms of general and specific responsivity. Theprinciple of general responsivity refers to employingtreatment interventions that are effective with a broadrange of offenders, for example, social learning andcognitive-behavioral interventions (Andrews et al.,1990). The principle of specific responsivity recognizesthat offenders are not a homogenous group but rathera heterogeneous group exhibiting multiplecharacteristics that may influence an individual’samenability to treatment, for example, race, gender,ethnicity, intelligence, motivation, or personalitycharacteristics (Andrews et al. 1990; Palmer, 1974).For example, cognitive-behavioral strategies are moreeffective with offenders with average to high level ofintelligence whereas offenders with low intelligencegenerally respond better to behavioral modificationtechniques (Fabiano, Porporino, and Robinson, 1991;Van Voorhis, Braswell, and Lester, 1997). Consistentwith the principle of specific responsivity, interventionsshould be matched to these unique characteristicswhen appropriate.

Effective Program Characteristics. Thecharacteristics associated with effective correctionalprograms include employing interventions based on anempirically recognized therapeutic model (i.e.,cognitive-behavioral and social learning models) andtargeting criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk factorsassociated with criminality) for change. In fact, multi-modal interventions (i.e., those employing behavioral,cognitive, and social learning techniques) arerecommended in the “what works” literature (Cullen andGendreau, 2000). Moreover, appropriate adherence tothe risk principle requires that correctional interventionsbe of sufficient duration, length, and intensity. Intensiveinterventions generally occupy forty to seventy percentof the offender’s time and last from three to ninemonths (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). In other words,the “intensiveness” of the intervention should bemodifiable according to the risk level of the offender.Otherwise, the intervention reflects a “one-size-fits-all”model.

Effective Service Delivery. Service delivery maycompromise the effectiveness of any correctionalprogram, so therefore it is important to examine servicedelivery methods in order to accurately assess theimplementation of a correctional program like theWVORI. Often there is a disjuncture between programdesign and how the program is actually delivered whichultimately impacts program outcomes. Thus, howservices are delivered is as important to programsuccess as what interventions are delivered and towhom. Moreover, how interventions are delivered mayinfluence an offender’s engagement in the treatmentintervention (Butler and Bird, 2000; Preston, 2000). Forexample, if staff practices are perceived as abusive orunfair by an offender this perception will likely promotetreatment resistance. Conversely, if staff practices areperceived as fair, respectful, and caring this perceptionwill likely promote positive engagement in treatment.

Generally, service delivery practices should beconsistent with the principle of general responsivity. Inother words, service delivery should involve thosetechniques derived from social learning theory andcognitive behavioral theory. Recently, the principle ofgeneral responsivity has been expanded to include corecorrectional practices. As Dowden and Andrews (2004:204) argue, “this enhancement of the coding of generalresponsivity (e.g., the way the program is delivered)may shed more light on the rehabilitation literature interms of ‘what works’.”

9 Core Correctional Practices and Service Delivery

Table 1. Description of Core Correctional Practices*

Appropriate use of authority may be described as staff adopting a “firm but fair” approach with offenders.Staff are direct and specific concerning their demands and rules are clear. Staff monitor progress andreward compliance with rules, give encouraging messages, and support their words with action. Staffrespectfully guide offenders toward compliance and refrain from controlling and shaming disciplinary practices.Staff members keep the focus of the message on the behavior and not the prisoner performing it.

Appropriate modeling and reinforcement entails staff engaging in pro-social modeling and role-playingand employing positive reinforcement and effective disapproval techniques when interacting with offenders.Staff consistently demonstrate and reinforce appropriate alternatives to pro-criminal styles of thinking, feelingand acting. Includes structured learning procedures such as the use of role playing/rehearsal, modeling,and providing appropriate feedback on inmate performance.

Skill-building and problem solving strategies refer to the use of structured learning and cognitive-behavioral techniques to foster skill development and improve the problem-solving ability of offenders. Staffmembers seek to identify inmate problems, help inmates generate alternatives, and develop animplementation plan.

Effective use of community resources, also referred to as advocacy and brokerage, involves staffconnecting the offender to other helping agencies that provide supportive or intervention based servicessuch as substance abuse treatment or employment services.

Relationship factors refer to the quality of staff-inmate relationships. Staff relate to offenders in open,genuine, respectful, caring, genuine, and enthusiastic ways. Staff members are empathic, competent andcommitted to helping the offender.

*Adapted from Andrews, 2000; Dowden & Andrews, 2004

Core Correctional Practices and Effective ServiceDelivery

The general responsivity principle underscores theimportance of how treatment should be delivered(Kennedy, 2000). Andrews and Kiessling (1980)identified five dimensions of effective correctionalintervention, also referred to as core correctionalpractices (CCPs), that when utilized may enhance thetherapeutic potential of correctional interventions.Consistent with the principle of general responsivity,CCPs are largely based on social learning techniquesand cognitive-behavioral techniques, such as role-playing, modeling, graduated practice, and systems ofreinforcement. Both therapeutic models have extensiveempirical support in the evaluation literature and arerecognized as “best practices” in correctionalprogramming (Andrews, 2000; Cullen and Gendreau,2000; Ross and Fabiano, 1985). The rationale foremploying CCPs is that offenders learn “pro-social andanticriminal attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral

patterns from their regular interactions with front-linestaff” (Dowden and Andrews, 2004:205). Moreover, anoffender is more apt to engage in treatment andtreatment is more likely to be effective if a goodtherapeutic alliance is created, as evidenced by positiverelationship factors (Kennedy, 2000).

The dimensions identified by Andrews and Kiessling(1980) were further elaborated by Andrews and Carvell(1998) as core correctional practice and have beenexpanded into a training curriculum titled “CoreCorrectional Training” (CCT) (Andrews and Carvell,1998). In essence, the dimensions of core correctionalpractice specify the quality of staff-inmate interactionsand relationships. The quality can be specified in termsof the structuring skills used during interactions withinmates and the dynamics of the relationship orrelationship factors. The dimensions include:appropriate use of authority, appropriate modeling andreinforcement, problem solving, effective use of

1 0WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III

2 A meta-analysis statistically measures the average effecton recidivism that an intervention has across multiple studiesand is reported as an effect-size. The effect-size is the averagedifference between the recidivism rate of the treatment andcontrol group.

community resources (advocacy/brokerage), andrelationship factors discussed in Table 1.

Given the proliferation of research examining theprinciples of effective intervention, very little researchhas focused on the characteristics of effective staff orthe best staff practices to use in the delivery ofcorrectional interventions (Dowden and Andrews,2004). Not surprisingly, though, evidence is emergingthat how things are done may be as important as whatis done. In fact, emerging empirical evidence suggeststhat how correctional services are delivered (or effectiveservice delivery) can promote effective outcomes incorrectional practice (Leschied, 2000).

Recent meta-analytic2 research by Dowden andAndrews (2004) compared the recidivism rates ofprograms that successfully use CCP (the presence ofat least three of the five dimensions of CCP) to therecidivism rates of programs that do not evidence theuse of CCP (Dowden and Andrews, 2004). This meta-analysis revealed that measures of CCP madeindependent contributions to enhanced effects ofcorrectional intervention programs. Nearly all of theCCP elements included were associated withsignificant reductions in recidivism rates, with theexception of appropriate use of authority (Dowden andAndrews, 2004: 212). In other words, “programs thatincorporated elements of CCP were associated withsubstantially higher mean effect sizes than programsthat did not” (Dowden and Andrews, 2004: 210). Theresults of the analysis further suggest that CCPenhances treatment effect within a variety of treatmentsettings and with a variety of case characteristics (e.g.,institutional and community based interventions, maleand female offenders, young and adult offenders, etc.).Moreover, the results were particularly strong withinprograms that were consistent with the principles ofrisk, need, and responsivity, thereby underscoring theimportance of adhering to the RNR model.

Although the results discussed above arepromising, there remains a strong need for a systematicexamination of responsivity and staff practices in orderto facilitate the implementation of programs andenhance effective service delivery (Kennedy, 2000;Ogloff and Davis, 2004). While responsivity factorsmay not be directly related to recidivism per se (e.g.,criminogenic needs), they do embody a number of non-criminogenic needs that may moderate the efficacy of

correctional interventions (Ogloff and Davis, 2004).Therefore, implementation plans for correctionalinterventions, particularly reentry services, shouldinvolve ways to enhance best staff practices throughselective recruitment (i.e., targeting for recruitmentpeople who exhibit values consistent human serviceand rehabilitation), training designed to enhance staffskills, particularly skills related to CCP, and performancemonitoring by administrative staff (Leschied, 2000;Tellier and Sellin, 2000).

It should also be noted that Dowden and Andrews(2004: 204) argue that the dimensions of CCP havebroad applicability and are relevant to both front-linecorrectional officers and correctional treatment staff.In fact, CCP may be more relevant to front-line staffgiven the frequency in which they engage in face-to-face interactions with inmates. Moreover, when front-line staff evidence CCP in their interactions with inmatesit provides a continuum of care from the therapeuticengagement to their broader environment within theinstitution. Such interactions provide a normativeframework that promotes the adoption of pro-socialattitudes, values, and behaviors for inmates, thus furtherenhancing the therapeutic potential for positive change.

DATA AND METHODS

Using data gathered from a sample of soon-to-be-released prisoners, this study examines the extent towhich transitional services are being provided toinmates under the WVORI. However, we are not onlyinterested in knowing what transitional services are beingoffered to prisoners, but how these services aredelivered. In particular, we assess the extent to whichtransitional services are being delivered in a mannerthat is consistent with effective correctional practice.Finally, this study seeks to better understand therelationship between inmate perceptions of servicedelivery and their feelings of preparedness for release.It is anticipated that inmates will report being betterprepared for release when they perceive the delivery ofsuch services to be in accordance with effectivecorrectional practice. The following research questionsguide the analyses for the present study:

1. How does the application of core correctionalpractices vary across work release centers and generalpopulation institutions?

2. To what extent are transitional services beingprovided to inmates in a manner that is consistent withcore correctional practices?

3. What transitional services do inmates reportbeing provided to them as part of the WVORI?

4. How does the delivery of transitional servicesvary across work release centers and generalpopulation institutions?

5. What economic, social, and legal difficulties doinmates expect or anticipate upon release?

6. To what extent do inmates feel prepared forrelease?

7. Are prisoner perceptions of the use of corecorrectional practices by staff positively associated withinmate preparedness for release?

Data CollectionA self-report questionnaire was administered to

groups of inmates, ranging from 22 to 34 prisoners per

Table 2. Number of Inmate Participants byCorrectional Instititution (N = 496)

Mount Olive Correctional CenterHuntington Work Release CenterOhio County Correctional CenterNorthern Correctional CenterDenmar Correctional CenterCharleston Work Release CenterHuttonsville Correctional CenterBeckley Correctional CenterLakin Correctional CenterPruntytown Correctional CenterSaint Mary’s Correctional CenterTotal

Correctional Institution

2627163042357319587199

496

5.25.43.26.08.57.1

14.73.8

11.714.320.0

100.0

N %

3Only 12 prisoners or 2.4% of the 496 inmates that completedthe survey indicated that they needed help in reading orcompleting the survey. There were no non-English speakinginmates in the population of inmates eligible to participate inthe present study.

group, and proctored by the research staff. This methodwas used in an effort to reduce administration time andcosts and because of its successful implementation inprevious studies (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy, 2001;Visher, La Vigne, and Castro, 2003). The survey wasdesigned to be easily read and completed by personswith difficulties in reading. The Flesch-Kincaidreadability test scored the questionnaire at a sixth-gradereading level. If a prisoner had difficulty reading orcompleting the survey, it was read to him or her by aperson on the research team.3

The population for the present study consisted ofall inmates within 90 days of possible release fromWVDOC custody. WVDOC staff at the central officecompiled a list of all inmates with parole eligibility dateswithin 90 days from the date in which the survey wasscheduled to be administered. Each correctional facilitywas asked to select a staff member (usually a physicaleducation instructor or other staff member serving in anon-custodial capacity) to assist the research team innotifying the inmates that they had been selected forthe study. Once a list of soon-to-be-released prisonerswere selected for the study, the staff member servingas the single point of contact at the facility distributedbasic information about the purpose of the study andthe mandatory orientation session. The requiredorientation session was designed to allow theresearchers an opportunity to communicate directly toinmates the purpose of the study, to review the humansubjects research protections, and to seek the informedconsent of the participants.

1 1 Core Correctional Practices and Service Delivery

aPercents may not total 100.0 due to rounding.bOther race/ethnicity includes American Indian, AlaskanNatives, Hispanic/Latino.cOther marital status includes widowed.

Age (Mean= 40.3; SD = 10.7)23 to 2930 to 3940 to 4950 to 5960 and overTotal

Race/EthnicityBlack/African AmericanWhite/CaucasianOtherb

Total

GenderMaleFemaleTotal

Marital statusSingleMarriedSeparated/DivorcedOtherc

Total

Highest grade completedEighth Grade or LessNinth GradeTenth GradeEleventh GradeTwelfth GradeSome CollegeTotal

Number of children(under age 18)No children1 child2 or 3 children4 or 5 children6 or more childrenTotal

Total number of childrenNo children1 child2 to 3 children4 to 5 children

DemographicCharacteristics

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics (N = 496)

711911525527

496

47444

5496

39898

496

24384

14915

491

62496683

20432

496

199126141255

496

15711817036

14.338.530.611.15.4

100.0

9.589.51.0

100.0

80.219.8

100.0

49.517.130.43.1

100.0

12.59.9

13.316.741.16.5

100.0

40.125.428.55.01.0

100.0

31.723.834.37.2

N %a

On the day of the survey, correctional staff calledall of the prisoners selected for the study to the locationwhere the survey would be administered (typically acommon area used for visitation or an educationclassroom). As part of the mandatory orientationsession, inmates were given additional informationabout the nature and purpose of the study, their rightsto participate (or not participate without penalty), andwere given the opportunity to ask questions about thestudy. Once the mandatory orientation was complete,persons who attended this session were told they werefree to participate or refuse participation.

It is also important to note that inmates who hadbeen placed in administrative segregation units werealso eligible to participate in the study if their nameappeared on the original list. In those instances,research staff went to the individual cells of the inmatesto administer the informed consent procedures andsurvey. Research staff returned to the cell periodicallyto inquire whether the inmate needed assistance incompleting the survey or had any questions for theresearchers. Once the inmate finished completing thesurvey, the researchers returned to collect thequestionnaire and answered any final questions theinmates had for the research staff.

Of the 728 inmates who were originally identifiedfor participation in the study, 664 attended the orientationsession. This attrition of inmates from the original listof eligible inmates and those that attended theorientation session was often due to inmates havingbeen transferred or released between the time the listof inmates was pulled and the day we arrived toadminister the survey. However, an effort was made tolimit the instances in which this occurred by pulling thelist as closely as possible to the survey administrationdate (usually within three days of the administrationdate). Nevertheless, some inmates were simplymissed while others were ill or had other commitmentsthat conflicted with the date and time of surveyadministration. In the end, attrition rates were ratherlow for most institutions, ranging between 6.0% and11.0%. Saint Mary’s and Huttonsville CorrectionalCenters had the highest rates of attrition at 11.1%.

Generally, once prisoners attended the mandatoryorientation session and learned about the purpose ofthe research, most wanted to participate in the study.Although nearly ten percent of inmates were not able toor did not attend the orientation session (664/728 – 1.0)= 8.8%), response rates were calculated based on thetotal number of inmates originally selected to participatein the study, divided by the number of inmates whoactually participated. As noted previously, a total of 728


LegalCharacteristics

Most serious offenseViolentPropertyDrugPublic OrderTotal

Number of present offenses1 offense2 offenses3 offenses4 offenses5 offenses6 offenses7 or more offensesTotal

Post-release supervisionNo parole supervisionParole supervisionUncertainTotal

Current parole violationNoYesTotal

3471082813

496

300933419171221

496

12129184

496

378112490

70.021.85.62.6

100.0

60.518.86.93.83.42.44.2

100.0

24.458.716.9

100.0

77.122.9

100.0

Table 4. Legal Characteristics (N = 496)

N %a

aPercents may not total 100.0 due to rounding.

inmates were originally identified to be eligible for thestudy (prisoners within 90 days of possible release).As a result, the final response rate for this study was68.1% (i.e., 496/728).4 This response rate is equal to,or in some cases substantially higher than, other recentoffender reentry studies that sampled soon-to-be-released offenders in other states (for example, seeVisher, La Vigne, and Castro, 2003).5

Table 2 displays the total number of inmates thatagreed to participate in the study. The total sample ofinmates is rather representative of the population sizefor each of the institutions. As shown in Table 1, thecorrectional centers at Saint Mary’s (20.0%),Huttonsville (14.7%), Pruntytown (14.3%), and Lakin(11.7%) contributed the most inmates to the sample

and are among the largest facilities in the state in termsof population size. Lakin Correctional Center (LCC) iscurrently the only all-female prison in the state. Incontrast, inmates housed in the two officiallydesignated work release centers in the state (Huntingtonand Charleston) as well as Beckley Correctional Center(BCC) contributed the fewest number of inmates to thestudy. Given that BCC is often used as a “step-down”facility, WVDOC central office staff recommended thatBCC be grouped as a work release center for fulfillingthe purposes of this study. Thus, the 81 inmates heldin WR release centers comprised 16.3% of the totalstudy sample.

Sample DescriptionThe demographic and legal characteristics of the

total sample are displayed in Tables 3 and 4. As shownin Table 3, a majority of the sample is comprised ofwhite males between the ages of 30 and 49 years ofage. Nearly ninety percent of the sample is comprisedof white/Caucasian prisoners (89.5%). Only 1.0% ofthe sample consists of American Indian, Alaskan native,and Hispanic or Latino inmates. Males account forslightly over eighty percent of the study participants(80.2%).

In addition, most inmates were either single orseparated/divorced and had at least one child. Nearlyone-half of the study participants were single (49.5%)while thirty percent were either divorced or separated(30.4%). Less than 1 out of every 5 inmates weremarried at the time of the study (17.1%). Nearly seventypercent of the inmates had at least one child (68.3%).One-third of prisoners had 2 or 3 children (34.3%) whileroughly ten percent of the sample had 4 or morechildren (10.2%). It appears that many of these childrenwere below the age of 18. Of the 496 inmates thatcomprised the sample, nearly sixty percent had at leastone child under the age of 18 (59.9%). Over one-half ofthe inmates had 1 to 3 children 17 years old or younger(53.9%).

In terms of education, most inmates had notcompleted 12 years of school. More than fifty percentof prisoners had a 11th grade education or less (52.4%).However, approximately 4 out of every 10 inmates hadcompleted at least the 12th grade (41.1%). Only 6.5%of the survey respondents had attended at least somecollege.

Table 4 displays the legal characteristics of the

1 3

4 Response rates by institution varied from a low of 45.1% atHuttonsville Correctional Center to a high of 94.6% at theCharleston Work Release Center. Other facilities with highresponse rates include the Huntington Work Release Center(90.0%) and the Ohio County Correctional Center (88.9%).

5 When prisoners that did not attend the mandatory orientationsession are excluded, the response rate increases by 6percentage points to 74.7% (i.e., 496/664).

Core Correctional Practices and Service Delivery

sample. As shown in Table 4, most prisoners wereserving time for a violent offense. In terms of mostserious offense, 70.0% of the study participants wereserving time for the commission of a violent crime.Roughly two-thirds of inmates were serving time for asingle offense (60.5%). A vast majority of inmates wereserving time for 3 or fewer current offenses (86.2%).

Overall, most inmates expected to be placed onparole supervision upon release and were not currentlyserving time for a parole violation. Nearly sixty percentof prisoners indicated that they would be under somekind of parole or community supervision after releasefrom prison (58.7%). Other inmates indicated that theywould not be on parole supervision (24.4%) or wereuncertain (16.9%) . More than seventy-five percent ofthe study participants were not serving time for a currentparole violation (77.1%).

MeasuresThis study incorporates multiple measures of core

correctional practices. In doing so, this study adheresclosely to the five dimensions originally identified byAndrews and Kiessling (1980) and the subordinatecategories later proposed by Dowden and Andrews(2004). The five dimensions include: effective use ofauthority, appropriate modeling and reinforcement,problem-solving, effective use of community resources,and quality of interpersonal relationships. All corecorrectional practice items were measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to stronglydisagree or a frequency scale ranging from never toalways. Respondents were asked to indicate howstrongly they agreed or disagreed with variousstatements of how often a particular item occurs withinthe correctional setting.

Using the individual items, scales were constructedto measure each core correctional practice dimension.Cronbach alpha reliability scores were calculated foreach scale. Confirmatory principle componentanalyses were then conducted to provide additionalsupport for the alpha estimates.6 Once the finalselection process was conducted, the final scales wereconstructed. All of the CCP scales had alpha reliabilityscores at acceptable levels (see Table 5).

For virtually all of the CCP scales, higher scoresrepresent greater use of each core correctionalpractice. In most instances, therefore, high scores oneach scale is “positive” because it reflects thatcorrectional staff were seen by prisoners as exhibitingor applying the core correctional practice in the

correctional setting. For the interpersonal dominationscale, however, high scores indicate greater levels ofinterpersonal domination. As a consequence, highscores on this scale run counter to the effective use ofauthority which encourages correctional staff torespectfully guide prisoners toward compliance.

Effective Use of AuthorityPrison Structure. This five-item scale measures

the extent to which rules and disciplinary practices areclearly understood by inmates. The construct of“structure” as it relates to the prison environment wasfirst described by Toch (1977) as one of his eightdimensions of the prison environment and laterquantified by Wright (1985) in the development of thePrison Environment Inventory (PEI). While the originalnotion of prison structure was intended to include a widerange of prison services (e.g., showering, recreation,and commissary) as well as the application of rulesand punishments, our adaptation of this measurefocuses solely on the clarity and directness of staff’scommands and the rules of the institution. Inmateswere asked to indicate the frequency a measureoccurred (e.g., never to always) in their institution. Highscores on this scale indicate that inmates know therules, what will get them written up by staff, and whatwill happen if they violate the rules (Cronbach’s alpha =.74).

Interpersonal Domination. According to Andrewsand Carvell (1998), the effective use of authority includesstaff members keeping the focus of disciplinarymessages on the behavior and not the offenderperforming it. This 7-item scale measures inmates’perception that the prison environment and theirinteractions with staff are characterized by control,hostility, shaming, and personal degradation. Similarto prison structure, inmates were asked to indicate thefrequency with which a particular event occurs in theirinstitution. One item was adapted from Wright’s (1985)PEI emotional feedback scale to reflect an inmateperception of all staff, not just correctional officers. Theremaining six items were developed by the authors.High scores on this scale indicate that inmates perceivestaff as being more concerned with controlling inmatesrather than helping them (e.g., “Staff give inmates withpersonal problems a hard time” and “Staff make inmatesfeel foolish and ashamed”) (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

Firm but Fair Disciplinary Practices. This five-itemscale measures the extent to which inmates believethat staff generally have a firm but fair approach whendisciplining inmates or when guiding themselves orother inmates toward compliance. Inmates were askedto indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed

1 4

6 The principle component analysis utilized a varimax rotation.Eigenvalues were evaluated based on the Kaiser criterion(Kaiser 1960), along with a scree examination.

WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III

with a series of statements. Inmates who believed thatstaff treated them fairly, treated all inmates in a similarway, and generally were pretty firm-but-fair with inmateshave higher scores on this scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.79). All items were developed by the authors.

Appropriate Modeling and ReinforcementThe use of a cognitive-behavioral approach to the

delivery of rehabilitation services is a central componentof core correctional practices. A cognitive-behavioralapproach is oriented toward modeling appropriatebehaviors, affording the opportunity for practicing newskills and/or behaviors, and the optimal use ofreinforcements.

Use of Role Playing/Rehearsal Techniques. Thistwo-item scale examines the extent to which inmateswere given the opportunity to practice the new skillsthey learned in their programming. Using a 4-point Likertscale, inmates were asked to indicate the degree towhich they agreed or disagreed with two statements.High scores on this scale indicate that inmates believedthat they were given the opportunity to practice new skillsand were dealing with problems in the right way in theirprograms (Cronbach’s alpha = .82). Both items weredeveloped by the authors.

Effective Disapproval Techniques. This three-itemscale captures the extent to which staff membersengaged in effective disapproval techniques such asimmediately expressing disapproval of inmate behaviorsand encouraging inmates to consider why their behaviorwas inappropriate. Inmates who reported that staffmembers tell them why their behavior is wrong andencourage them to think about why their behavior iswrong are represented by higher scores on this scale(Cronbach’s alpha = .69). All items were developed bythe authors.

Effective Use of Reinforcement. It is oftenrecognized that an appropriate schedule ofreinforcement should adhere to the “4-to-1” rule — giveat least four positive supportive statements for everypunishing one. Hence, it is important for correctionalstaff to positively reinforce inmates for good behavior.This 4-item scale measures the degree to whichinmates perceive that staff members use positivereinforcements. A high score on this scale indicatesthat inmates feel that staff members tend to praise themwhen they do things right, tell them when they do well,and recognize their accomplishments (Cronbach’salpha = .84). All items were developed by the authors.

Modeling. Effective modeling occurs whenappropriate behaviors are demonstrated in vivid andconcrete ways. This three-item scale captures theextent to which inmates believe that staff members

provide a good example of how to live and stay out oftrouble. Using a four-point Likert scale, inmates wereasked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreedwith a series of statements. High scores on this scaleindicate that inmates feel that staff members are asource of effective modeling (Cronbach’s alpha = .78).All items were developed by the authors.

Cognitive Skills Development and Problem-SolvingUse of Cognitive Skill Development Strategies.

Structured learning that results in the building of newskills in problem-solving and other aspects of self-management including cognitive self-change is a centralaspect of effective correctional counseling. This five-item scale measures the degree to which inmates wereencouraged by staff to reflect on the behaviors that gotthem into trouble and how to change those behaviors.Inmates who felt that they had been taught how to avoid“thinking errors”, consider how their own thoughts andfeelings got them into trouble, and how to find new waysof thinking score higher on this scale (Cronbach’s alpha= .93). All items were developed by the authors.

Use of Problem-Solving Strategies. Effectiveproblem-solving on the part of correctional staff ischaracterized by the capacity to identify inmateproblems, generate solutions, and assist inmates in theimplementation of a plan. This six-item scale capturesthe extent to which inmates believe that staff membersview their problems realistically, have helped themdevelop a plan for release that can work, and assistedthem in putting their plans into action. High scores onthis scale indicate a greater use of problem-solvingstrategies on the part of correctional staff (Cronbach’salpha = .84). All items were developed by the authors.

Effective Use of Community ResourcesAdvocacy/Brokerage. The capacity of correctional

staff to adequately leverage community resources is acore correctional practice and is of special importancefor the successful reintegration of offenders into thecommunity. This nine item scale identifies the extent towhich inmates reported that staff members engaged inadvocacy and brokerage on their behalf. Such activitiesinclude helping inmates find a place to live, gainemployment, and obtain public benefits and incomeassistance upon release. Items extracted from varioussubscales of Burt, Duke, and Hargreaves’ (1998)Program Environment Scale (PES) served as a basisfor the formation of this scale. However, original itemswere modified to better reflect the prison context andadditional measures were used to capture relevantaspects to offender reentry programming. High scoreson this scale indicate greater levels of advocacy and

1 5 Core CorrectionalPractices and Service Delivery

1 6

brokerage on the part of correctional staff (Cronbach’salpha = .90).

Quality of Interpersonal RelationshipsThe presence of high-quality interpersonal

relationships between staff and inmates is essential forestablishing a setting in which other characteristics ofeffective correctional interventions can take place suchas modeling and reinforcements. Such relationshipsare characterized by openness, respect, and trust. Inaddition, it is important for staff members to becommitted to their work and competent in theirrespective roles.

Staff Respect toward Inmates. This four-item scalemeasures the extent to which inmates reported that stafftreated them with respect. A majority of the items wereadapted from Burt et al. (1998) PES. High scores on

this scale indicate that inmates perceived greater levelsof respect on the part of staff (Cronbach’s alpha = .78).

Staff Cares about Me. This six-item scale assessesthe degree to which the inmates perceive that staffmembers care about them. High scores on this scaleindicate that inmates feel that staff listen to themcarefully and are looking out for their best interest. Fourof the items were taken from Burt et al. (1998) and twoadditional items were added by the authors (Cronbach’salpha = .87).

Staff Openness. This six-item scale assesses theextent to which the staff-inmate relationship ischaracterized by an openness in which the inmate canexpress his or her opinions, feelings, and experiences.High scores indicate that inmates feel they can talk tostaff about what is bothering them, are comfortable indiscussing their feelings with staff, view staff as being

Effective Use of AuthorityPrison StructureInterpersonal DominationFirm-but-Fair Disciplinary Practices

Appropriate Modeling & ReinforcementUse of Role Playing/Rehearsal TechniquesEffective Disapproval TechniquesEffective Use of ReinforcementsModeling

Use of Skill Building and Problem-SolvingStrategiesUse of Cognitive Skill Development StrategiesUse of Problem-Solving Strategies

Effective Use of Community Resources Advocacy and/or Brokerage

Quality of Interpersonal RelationshipsStaff Respect Toward InmatesStaff Cares About MeStaff OpennessInmate-Staff TrustStaff CommitmentStaff Skill Factors

Table 5. Core Correctional Practices Scale Descriptives

14.1217.1110.14

4.706.287.616.10

10.3811.86

15.54

7.8111.7911.3610.8410.345.78

5.007.005.00

2.003.004.003.00

5.006.00

9.00

4.006.006.006.005.003.00

3.134.643.14

1.732.062.402.11

4.153.91

5.16

2.613.823.763.623.031.98

Variables

20.0028.0020.00

8.0012.0016.0012.00

20.0024.00

33.00

16.0024.0024.0024.0020.0012.00

.74

.88

.79

.82

.69

.84

.78

.93

.84

.90

.78

.87

.86

.83

.76

.79

Min MaxMean Sd Alpha N

476468480

482486483490

478471

471

488479482489483486


1 7

very accessible and easy to talk to. High scores on thisscale indicate a greater degree of openness betweenstaff and inmate (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).

Inmate-Staff Trust. An important indicator forassessing the quality of relationship conditions is theextent to which trust and confidentiality is presentbetween inmates and staff. This six-item scalemeasures the level of inmate-staff trust. Four of theitems were derived from Burt et al. (1998) PES and twoitems were developed by the authors. High scores onthis scale reflect that inmates feel they can be honestwith staff members and can trust staff not to repeatpersonal aspects of their lives to others (Cronbach’salpha = .83).

Staff Commitment. This five-item scale measuresthe extent to which inmates believe staff members areenthusiastic about and committed to their work. Fourof the items were derived from Burt et al. (1998) PESand one item was developed by the authors. Highscores indicate that staff are excited about their work

with inmates, enjoy their work, and are interested inworking with inmates (Cronbach’s alpha = .76).

Staff Skill Factors. This three-item scale measuresthe degree to staff members use directive and structuredforms of communication with inmates. High scores onthis scale indicate that inmates believe staff membersprovide clear instruction, that staff members “reallyseem to know what they are doing,” and are wellorganized and prepared in carrying out their jobs(Cronbach’s alpha = .79). All items were developed bythe authors.

Table 5 displays the descriptive statistics for eachof the core correctional practice scales. The minimumand maximum possible values for each scale aredisplayed as well as the mean, standard deviation, andthe alpha reliability score. The minimum and maximumvalues for each scale, in conjunction with the mean,can be used to examine the extent to which inmatesperceive the use of core correctional practices on thepart of correctional staff and in WVDOC facilities. Forinstance, the mean can be compared to midpoint oneach scale to ascertain whether the mean value is aboveor below the natural midpoint for each scale. In thisway, it is possible to assess the degree to which corecorrectional practices are viewed as being present inthe correctional environment from the perspective ofprisoners.

For most of the CCP scales, the mean values arebelow the midpoint indicating that the distribution isslightly skewed toward lower scores. The mean scoreon only one scale – prison structure (mean = 14.12) –was found to be above the scale’s midpoint. This scoresuggests that many inmates felt that the prisonenvironment was characterized by structure in thatprison rules were clear and inmates knew what wouldhappen to them if they violated the rules. The meanvalue on the interpersonal domination scale was alsohigh compared to other measures (mean = 17.11).However, high scores on the interpersonal dominationscale run counter to the effective use of authority. As aresult, a higher score implies that prisoners viewedcorrectional staff as enforcing institutional rules throughthe use of controlling and shaming practices.

The mean values on all other CCP scales werelower than might be expected. In particular, the meanscore on the advocacy and/or brokerage scale as wellas several of the individual scales associated with thequality of interpersonal relationships were found to belower than anticipated. In the case of the advocacyand/or brokerage scale, the mean value (15.54) wasmore than five points less than the calculated midpointon this scale (21.0). As a result, responses on this


The population for the present study consistedof all inmates within 90 days of possible releasefrom WVDOC custody.

The final response rate for this study was 68.1%.

A majority of the sample is comprised of whitemales between the ages of 30 and 49.

Of the 496 inmates that comprised the sample,nearly sixty percent had at least one child (underthe age of 18). Over one-half of the inmateshad 1 to 3 children 17 years old or younger.

Nearly sixty percent of prisoners indicated thatthey would be under some kind of parole orcommunity supervision after release fromprison (58.7%).

In terms of most serious offense, 70.0% of thestudy participants were serving time for thecommission of a violent crime.

More than three-quarters of the studyparticipants were not serving time for a currentparole violation.


1 8

scale were skewed in the direction of lower values. Thissuggests that many inmates did not believe staffmembers were working toward identifying appropriatereferral sources for them after release or speaking ontheir behalf to community organizations.

Similar to the results on the advocacy and/orbrokerage scale, mean scores on many of theinterpersonal relationship scales were lower than whatmight be anticipated. While all of the quality ofinterpersonal relationship measures had means lowerthan the midpoint for each scale, mean values wereespecially low in relation to inmate-staff trust (mean =10.84), openness (mean = 11.36), and caring (11.79)scales. It appears that many correctional staff may notbe developing the quality interpersonal relationships withprisoners that have been found to be most effective inproducing behavioral change in offenders.

Lastly, many of the indicators associated with theapplication of a cognitive-behavioral approach tooffender management and treatment are not viewedas being present in the correctional setting by manyprisoners. In particular, the mean value for the use ofproblem-solving strategies (mean = 11.86) is lower thanthe calculated midpoint on the scale of 15.0. Lowerscores on this scale indicate that prisoners were lesslikely to believe that correctional staff viewed theirproblems realistically and were helping them to developand implement their plans for release. Additionally, themean values for the use of effective disapprovaltechniques (mean = 6.28) and reinforcements (mean= 7.61) fell slightly below the midpoint for each scale.

Transitional Services and Prisoner Expectations forRelease

In addition to assessing the extent to which staffdemonstrated core correctional practices in the deliveryof services, a series of questions was also designed tomeasure the delivery of transitional services to inmatesas well as inmate expectations and feelings ofpreparedness for release. These measures aredescribed below.

Transitional Services. This report examines theextent to which transitional services are being offeredto prisoners in accordance with the offender reentryprogram plan developed by WVDOC administrators.The Prisoner Case Management Manual and theOffender Reentry Program Plan as well as discussionswith WVDOC offender reentry program developersserved as resources for this inquiry.

These two documents outline the pre-paroleservices, community contact and referral services, andaftercare strategies to be implemented by WVDOC

correctional staff and parole officers in an effort toprepare inmates for release. The transitional servicesassessed in this study include, but are not limited to,assisting soon-to-be-released prisoners with obtainingbasic documents (e.g., social security card, driver’slicenses or state ID cards, birth certificates, etc.),benefits (e.g., SSI, food stamps, veteran’s benefits),and aftercare or community services (e.g., mentalhealth and substance abuse treatment, job andeducational training, health care, etc.).

Expectations and Preparedness for Release. Thefinal section of this report examines prisonerexpectations and preparedness for release. Thepurpose is to better understand the potential barriersthat prisoners expect to face upon release and theservices that many inmates may require as they seekto reintegrate back into their communities. Moreover,we are interested in ascertaining the extent to whichthe quality of services delivered may impact prisoner’sself-appraisals for their preparedness or readiness forrelease.

The Urban Institute’s Returning Home multi-stateproject served as the basis for many of our measuresrelated to prisoner expectations for release (e.g., seeVisher, La Vigne, and Castro, 2003). Prisoners areasked to report how “difficult” or “hard” it will be for themto overcome a wide range of potential barriers tosuccessful reintegration. These including finding a job,making enough money to support themselves, securinga place to live, reconnecting with their families and othersocial supports, and staying out of legal trouble.

Preparedness for release was measured byproviding inmates with a series of statements thatcaptured the degree to which they felt ready to overcomemany of the potential barriers they might face. Inmateswere asked to indicate how strongly they agreed ordisagreed with each statement. High scores on the“preparedness for release” scale indicated that inmatesbelieved they were more prepared for the task ofreintegrating back into society. The following sectionbegins the presentation of the results.


1 9

RESULTS

The presentation of results begins with anexamination of the use of correctional practices amongcorrectional staff. Results for the total sample ofinmate respondents are presented first. Thesefindings are followed by an examination of the use ofCCPs and the extent to which they vary across generalpopulation and work release institutions. Prisonerexpectations and preparedness are also described.This section concludes with an assessment of therelationship between CCPs and inmate preparednessfor release.

Use of Core Correctional Practices by CorrectionalStaff for the Total Sample

Graph 1 examines the appropriate use of authorityamong correctional staff. Generally, most inmatesreported high levels of prison structure, moderate tohigh levels of interpersonal domination tactics betweenstaff and inmates, and a rather low use of “firm butfair” disciplinary practices.

In terms of prison structure, it is clear that a vast

majority believe their institution provides a high degreeof structure. Hence, most inmates indicate that theyknow what will happen if they violate the rules, what willget them written up by staff, and feel that the rules are“spelled-out” pretty clearly in their institution. A total of214 or 45.0% of all inmates reported that there was ahigh degree of structure at their facility. Less than tenpercent of inmates felt that the institution did not provideample structure (6.5%). As a result, more than ninetypercent of prisoners indicated that there was at least amoderate level of structure in their institution (93.5%).

As for the other measures of appropriate authorityuse, however, it is apparent that many inmates also feltthat the prison environment was characterized by controland shaming practices rather than firm-but-fairdisciplinary practices. Roughly 1 out of every 5 inmatesindicated that their interactions with staff contained ahigh level of interpersonal domination and hostility(23.3%). Likewise, nearly the same percentage ofprisoners indicated low levels of control and shaming intheir interactions with prison staff (20.9%). Thus, a vastmajority of inmates reported moderate levels of suchinteractions with staff in their institutions (55.8%).

Prison Structure(N = 476)

InterpersonalDomination(N = 468)

Firm-but-FairDisciplinary Practices

(N = 480)

Graph 1. Inmate Ratings for the Appropriate Use of Authority by Correctional Staff

Low

Mod

erat

e Hig

hPer

cent

age

10

20

30

40

50

60



Per

cent

age

Role Playing/RehearsalTechniques(N = 482)

EffectiveDisapprovalTechniques(N = 486)

Effective Use ofReinforcements

(N = 483)

Modeling(N = 490)

Low

Mod

erat

e

Hig

h

Graph 2. Inmate Ratings on the Effective Use of Modeling and Reinforcements by Correctional Staff60

10

20

30

40

50

While a large proportion of inmates perceived a highlevel of prison structure or clear rules, far fewer inmatesfelt that the rules were carried out on a consistent basisby correctional staff. Many inmates indicated that ruleswere “carried out unfairly” or that “some inmates aretreated more harshly than others for no reason” in theirinstitutions. In fact, over forty percent of inmatesindicated that prison staff do not engage in firm-but-fairdisciplinary practices (43.8%). Less than ten percentof all inmates reported high levels of such disciplinarypractices in their institution (9.0%). Of the 480respondents, only 43 inmates indicated staff routinelyused a firm but fair approach when disciplining inmatesor when guiding themselves or other inmates towardcompliance.

Fundamental principles of a behavioral approachinvolve the learning of behaviors through observationand intimidation (i.e., modeling), practice (i.e., role-playing rehearsal), and immediate application of costsand rewards (i.e., reinforcements). Given theimportance of applying a behavioral approach toinfluence or change inmate behaviors, Graph 2illustrates the extent to which inmates perceived the

effective use of modeling and reinforcements by casemanagers, counselors, and parole officers. Overall,the results suggest that there is variation in the extentto which these behavioral principles are being applied.

Based on the results presented in Graph 2, itappears that many inmates believe they are given theopportunity to practice new behaviors in prison.However, inmates are less likely to feel that appropriatebehaviors are demonstrated for them by correctionalstaff. Moreover, even fewer inmates indicated thatreinforcements for their own behaviors were offered byprison staff on a regular basis. For instance, over one-third of inmates indicated a high level of role-playingand/or rehearsal of new behaviors and skills in theirprison programs (36.3%). As a result, these inmatestended to strongly agree that they were given the chanceto practice dealing with problems the right way andpractice the things they had learned in prison programs.

For the other behavioral components, however,fewer inmates agreed that staff effectively modeledappropriate behaviors for them. Only 14.3% of inmatesstrongly agreed that staff provided a good example ofhow to live and stay out of trouble. Nearly 4 out of every

2 1

10 inmates rated the effective use of modelingtechniques on the part of correctional staff as low(39.8%).

In the same regard, many inmates indicated thateffective reinforcement techniques were not being usedon the part of correctional staff. Effective use ofreinforcement involves not only the use ofreinforcements, but the effective use of disapprovaltechniques. Inmates were slightly more likely to reportthe use of effective disapproval techniques on the partof staff compared to reinforcements.

Nearly twenty percent of inmates strongly agreedthat staff had engaged in effective disapprovaltechniques (16.9%). This is compared to only 7.2% ofinmates indicating that reinforcements were effectivelyused by correctional staff. This resulted in 35.6% and41.0% of inmates indicating a low level of effectivedisapproval and reinforcement strategies had beenused by correctional staff respectively. As aconsequence, over forty percent of inmates did not feelthat staff rewarded them for good behavior or praisedthem when they did things right. At the same time,roughly one-third of inmates felt that they were told whytheir behaviors were wrong and then asked to thinkabout why their behaviors were wrong.

The important skills to be taught to inmates preparingfor release include problem-solving and cognitive self-change. Cognitive skill building involves encouraginginmates to reflect on their behaviors and how to changethem. Strategies to develop problem-solving skillsinvolve helping inmates identify problems as well asworking with inmates to help them evaluate options,or generate alternatives and implement plans to dealwith problems.

Graph 3 displays the extent to which inmatesperceive the use of cognitive skill building and problem-solving strategies as part of correctional programming.Given that correctional counselors most often directlyengage in cognitive skill building exercises, inmateswere asked to evaluate the extent to which theircounselors encouraged them to think about theirbehaviors and appropriate skills to avoid thinking errors.The findings in Graph 3 show that less than twentypercent of inmates rated the presence of cognitive skilldevelopment strategies on the part of correctionalcounselors as high (19.7%). On the contrary, nearly 4out of every 10 inmates rated the use of thesetechniques as low (38.9%). These results suggest thatwell over one-third of inmates did not believe that theywere encouraged to think about the things that led themto prison and how to change them or taught how toavoid thinking errors.

Graph 3. Inmate Ratings for the Use ofCognitive Skill Building and Problem-Solving

Cognitive SkillDevelopment

Strategies

Problem SolvingStrategies

Per

cent

age

Low

Mod

erat

e

Hig

h

10

20

30

40

50


Most inmates reported high levels of prisonstructure, moderate to high levels ofinterpersonal domination tactics between staffand inmates, and a rather low use of “firm butfair” disciplinary practices.

Over one-third of inmates reported a high levelof role-playing and/or rehearsal of newbehaviors and skills in their prison programs.

Over one-third of inmates did not believe thatthey were encouraged to think about the thingsthat led them to prison and how to change themor taught how to avoid thinking errors.

A substantial proportion of inmates did not feelthat staff had helped them develop a plan forrelease that could work, that staff did not viewtheir problems realistically, and they hadreceived little help in putting their plans forrelease into action.



The development of inmate problem-solving skillsis a core function of case managers and counselorsas they prepare inmates for release. However, a ratherlarge proportion of inmates felt that case managersand counselors had not engaged them in such activities.As shown in Graph 3, less than ten percent of allinmates gave a high rating for the application ofproblem-solving strategies (9.6%). On the contrary,more than forty percent of inmates rated this measureas low (42.9%). Generally, this means that a substantialproportion of inmates did not feel that staff had helpedthem develop a plan for release that could work, thatstaff did not view their problems realistically, and theyhad received little help in putting their plans for releaseinto action.

Application of Core Correctional Practices acrossInstitution Type

As noted previously, work release centers functionvery differently than the general population institutionsin WV. While there are fewer staff in work releasecenters compared to the other institutions, staff aremuch more likely to have the chance to get to know theindividual needs of inmates and monitor servicedelivery. For instance, a single staff member may beresponsible for multiple duties such as establishinginmate’s parole plans, providing programming, as wellas assessing an offender’s needs. This can result inmore positive one-on-one staff-inmate interactions,thereby impacting the quality of services provided toprisoners preparing for release. As a result, we should

2 2

Table 6. Results of Independent Samples T-Tests for the Differences in the Application of CoreCorrectional Practices Across Institution Type (N = 496)

Effective Use of AuthorityPrison StructureInterpersonal DominationFirm-but-Fair Disciplinary Practices

Appropriate Modeling & ReinforcementUse of Role Playing/Rehearsal TechniquesEffective Disapproval TechniquesEffective Use of ReinforcementsModeling

Use of Skill Building and Problem-SolvingStrategiesCognitive Skill Development StrategiesProblem-Solving Strategies

Effective Use of Community ResourcesAdvocacy and/or Brokerage

Quality of Interpersonal RelationshipsStaff Respect Toward InmatesStaff Cares About MeStaff OpennessInmate-Staff TrustStaff CommitmentStaff Skill Factors

797980

81817981

8180

77

808081797881

2.934.972.88

1.521.922.561.92

3.913.61

4.65

2.583.813.723.543.072.00

14.7316.0411.44

5.147.198.417.12

11.8513.30

16.75

8.6913.7312.5111.9510.926.19

Core Correctional Practices Scales

397389400

401405404409

397391

394

408399401410405405

13.9817.339.88

4.616.107.455.90

10.0811.57

15.31

7.6511.4011.1310.6310.235.70

MeanMean Sd Sd

3.154.543.12

1.762.042.342.09

4.143.91

5.23

2.583.703.733.613.011.97

Work ReleaseInmates

General PopulationInmates

n t- test

1.958-2.2704.123

2.7544.4333.2604.897

3.5353.654

2.450

3.2895.0943.0272.9831.8572.004

n

****

***********

******

*

**********

*

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

2 3

expect to see substantive differences in the quality ofservices provided to inmates, as measured throughcore correctional practices.

Table 6 displays the results of the independentsamples t-tests for the differences in the use of corecorrectional practices by institution type. As shown inTable 6, it is rather clear that there were substantivedifferences in the perceptions of inmates as they relateto the quality of services provided. On every corecorrectional practice measure, work release centersscored more favorably. In many instances, thedifferences between work release centers and generalpopulation institutions are statistically significant.Simply put, these results suggest that work releasecenters are more in line with the principles found incore correctional practices.

In regards to the effective use of authority, workrelease centers are rated by inmates as having slightlymore structure. Meanwhile, WR center staff are seen

by inmates as being less controlling and/or shamingand more consistent and fair in enforcing facility rules.In fact, inmates rated WR center staff as beingsignificantly less likely to engage in behaviors that wereviewed as controlling, hostile, or shaming (t-test =-2.270; p < .05). At the same time, WR center staffwere significantly more likely to be viewed by inmatesas being consistent in their enforcement of facility rules(t-test = 4.123; p < .001).

The appropriate use of modeling as well asreinforcement structures also appear to be taking placeto a greater extent in WR centers. Significantdifferences between WR centers and generalpopulation institutions were found on every behavioralmeasure. Inmates were significantly more likely to viewWR center staff as providing appropriate models forgood behavior (t-test = 4.897; p < .001). As a result,inmates in WR centers tended to see staff as providinggood examples on how to live and stay out of trouble.

Similarly, WR center staff were significantly more

Total Sampleof Inmates

Work ReleaseInmates


Low

Mod

erat

e

Hig

h

Graph 4. Percentage of Inmates Reporting the Effective Use of Community Resources byInstitution Type and Total Sample

(N = 471) (n = 77) (n = 394)

Per

cent

age

10

20

30

40

50

60


likely to be seen by inmates as using effectivedisapproval (t-test = 4.433; p < .001) and reinforcementtechniques (t-test = 3.260; p < .001). Generally, thissuggests that inmates in WR centers tended to viewtheir staff as a source of reinforcement rather thanpunishment compared to prisoners in generalpopulation institutions. Lastly, inmates in WR centerswere significantly more likely to indicate that they weregiven the opportunity to practice new skills they hadgained while incarcerated (t-test = 2.754; p < .01).

Based on the responses of inmates, both skillbuilding and structured learning activities also tend tobe more strongly related to WR centers and their staff.Significant differences were found in the use of bothcognitive skill development and problem-solvingstrategies on the part of WR center counselors andstaff. Compared to general population inmates, WRcenter inmates were significantly more likely to reportstaff’s use of cognitive skill development strategies(t-test = 3.535; p < .001). As a result, WR center staff

may be engaging in activities that teach inmates howto avoid thinking errors, reflect on their behavior, anddevelop strategies to change the behavior that resultedin their being incarcerated.

WR release inmates were also significantly morelikely to indicate that staff worked with them to buildproblem-solving skills. The mean level scores on theuse of problem-solving strategies for WR centers wassignificantly greater than that of general populationinstitutions (t-test = 3.654; p < .001). This findingsuggests that WR center staff may be able to viewinmates’ problems more realistically and provide greaterassistance in the development of inmate release plans.In essence, inmates in WR centers felt that they coulddepend on staff to better understand their problems andhelp them generate solutions.

The effective use of community resources is ofparticular importance for offender reentry programssuch as the WVORI. By leveraging communityresources, offender reentry programs (as well astraditional community-based interventions) can bettermatch intervention services to the needs of offendersand reduce many of the barriers inmates encounterwhen they transition from prison to the community.Advocacy and brokerage activities may involve helpinginmates find a job or income assistance, a place tolive, as well as any public benefits for which they mightbe eligible.

Similar to other findings on the use of corecorrectional practices, the results of the independentsamples t-test presented in Table 6 suggests that WRcenters may be doing a better job of advocating forinmates nearing release. As shown in Table 6, there isa significant difference in the mean level of advocacyand/or brokerage used on the part of WR center andgeneral population staff according to inmates (t-test =2.450; p < .05). Generally speaking, inmates in WRcenters tended to view WR staff as working more togenerate referrals and speaking on their behalf tocommunity organizations in an effort to ease theirtransition to the community.

The relationship between the use of advocacy and/or brokerage on the part of correctional staff acrossinstitution type is further examined in Graph 4. First, itis important to point out that it is rather clear that a vastmajority of inmates -- regardless of the type of institution-- do not believe staff work to identify referrals or speakon their behalf to community organizations or serviceproviders. As shown in Graph 4, only 6.4% of allinmates rate the effective use of community resourcesas high on the part of correctional staff. At the sametime, over one-half of all inmates did not believe thatstaff were committed to generating referrals for them



In terms of service delivery across institutiontype, it is rather clear that substantivedifferences in the perceptions of inmates werepresent. On every core correctional practicemeasure, WR inmates scored the quality ofservices more favorably.

Inmates in WR centers tended to view WR staffas working more to generate referrals andspeaking on their behalf to communityorganizations in an effort to ease their transitionto the community.

It is rather clear that a vast majority of inmates— regardless of the type of institution — do notbelieve staff work to identify referrals or speakon their behalf to community organizations orservice providers.

Compared to inmates in general populationfacilities, WR center inmates were significantlymore likely to view their staff as a source ofreinforcement rather than punishment, reportthey were given the opportunity to practice newskills, and indicate they could depend on staffto better understand their problems and helpthem generate solutions.

or lobbying community resources to help them transitionto the community (51.4%).

On the other hand, inmates in WR release centershad a more favorable view of staff in this regard. Justbelow forty percent of WR inmates rated staff’s effortsto advocate and/or broker on their behalf as low(39.0%), compared to over fifty percent of generalpopulation inmates (53.8%). Meanwhile, more than fiftypercent of WR inmates reported moderate levels ofadvocacy/brokerage on the part of correctional staff

(53.2%) compared to only 40.1% of inmates in generalpopulation facilities. Similar to the comparison ofmeans, these differences in inmate perceptions ofstaff’s use of advocacy and/or brokerage werestatistically significant (chi-square = 5.690; p < .05).

Finally, a critical component to the delivery ofsuccessful correctional services is the development ofhigh-quality interpersonal relationships. Correctionalstaff who are successful in producing behavioral changeand managing inmate behaviors establish such

2 5

Completed a paroleorientation course(N = 489)

Completed an infectiousdisease education course

Reviewed a copy of youraftercare plan*(N = 487)

Met with your case managerto update your IRPP(N = 490)

Given contact information forcommunity service providers(N = 491)

Scheduled appointments witha community service provider(N = 489)

Graph 5. Percentage of Inmates that Received Pre-Release Courses and Services by InstitutionType and Total Sample (N = 496)

*Pearson Chi-Square 4.482, sig. value .034. The number of cases excluded from the analysis did not exceed 1.8%of the population for any single item.

Work Release InmatesGeneral Population Inmates

Total Sample of Inmates

Percentage10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(N = 488)


WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III 2 6

relationships with the individuals they supervise andtreat. Such relationships create the conditions in whichmodeling and reinforcement can more readily takeplace. As noted previously, these relationships arecharacterized by various qualities that include but arenot limited to openness, warmth, understanding,respect, enthusiasm, and trust. In addition, staffcommitment and skill factors are also associated witheffective correctional workers.

Table 6 compares the presence of suchrelationships across the two types of institutions.Several aspects known to be associated with highquality relationships are examined. Similar to many ofthe other findings on the application of core correctionalpractices, inmates tended to view WR center staff ashaving the qualities consistent with the fostering ofeffective interpersonal relationships when compared tostaff in general population institutions. With theexception of staff commitment, significant differenceswere found between WR and general population staffon most relationship measures.

While inmates viewed staff as being equallyenthusiastic about their jobs and committed to their workacross the two institutions, there were significantdifferences across other relationship factors. Inmatesperceived staff in WR centers to be more respectfultowards them (t-test = 3.289; p < .001) as well as morecaring (t-test = 5.094; p < .001) and open (t-test =3.027; p < .01). Likewise, WR staff were viewed asbeing more trustworthy by inmates compared to theircounterparts in higher security institutions. A significantdifference in the level of inmate-staff trust was foundbetween WR center and general population facilities(t-test = 2.983; p < .01).

Finally, inmates housed in WR centers tended toview staff competencies differently than those housedin the more secure general population institutions. WRcenter inmates saw their staff as being more organizedand prepared to carry out their jobs (t-test = 2.004; p <.05). While a comparison across institutions suggeststhat most inmates did not rate staff as “high” on thismeasure (i.e., only 11.1% of inmates rated staff in eitherinstitution high on skill factors), WR center inmateswere far less likely to rate their staff as “low” on skillfactors. For instance, nearly one-half of inmates ingeneral population institutions rated their staff low onskill factors (45.4%). This is compared to fewer thanone-third of inmates in WR centers (27.2%). Hence, agreater proportion of WR center inmates felt that staffwere at least moderately organized and prepared whencompared to inmate perceptions of staff in highersecurity facilities.

The WVORI and the Delivery of Transitional ServicesA hallmark of any offender reentry program is its

focus on providing services to offenders that can assistthem when they transition from the prison to thecommunity environment. Such services are intendedto address many of the basic practical needs ofoffenders prior to their release from the institution inan effort to reduce many of the known barriers tosuccessful reintegration.

In many cases, seemingly practical aspects of lifesuch as having social security cards reissued, obtaininga driver’s license, and securing social security andveteran’s benefits can present themselves as obstaclesto offenders as they seek to reenter society. Similarly,many offenders leave institutional confinement with aneed to continue mental health and/or drug treatmentservices as well as educational pursuits. As a result,correctional staff often engage in a series of activitiesdesigned to identify the transitional needs of individualoffenders in order to provide the appropriate servicesprior to release.

Using the WVORI design plan and casemanagement protocol developed by WVDOCadministrators as a guide, this section of the reportexamines the extent to which transitional services wereprovided to inmates. Inmates were asked whether ornot they had received a variety of services associatedwith preparing them for release. The presentation ofresults begins with an analysis of inmate responsesrelated to pre-release instruction on infectious diseasesand parole conditions as well as basic interactions withcase managers and community service providers.


Both WR center and general population inmateswere equally likely to indicate that they had notcompleted a parole orientation or infectiousdisease education course.

At the time that the survey was administered(i.e., within 90 days of possible release), only12.9% of all inmates had reviewed a copy oftheir aftercare plan.

Less than ten percent of all inmates stated thatthey had been given the contact information ofa community services provider (9.0%) andfewer than five percent had actually scheduledan appointment (4.5%). These results did notvary significantly across institution type.

Exposure to Aftercare and Individual ReentryProgram Plans

Graph 5 displays the percentage of inmates thatstated they had received various pre-release courses

and services. Prior to release, both a parole orientationand infectious disease education course are requiredto be provided to inmates. These courses are intendedto educate inmates on various parole supervision

***

***

***

*

**

*

***

Table 7. Crosstabulation for the Delivery of Inmate Transitional Services by Institution Type (N = 496)

33.344.921.8

33.863.82.5

28.863.87.5

72.517.510.0

70.013.816.3

60.012.527.5

66.318.815.0

76.37.5

16.3

43.836.320.0

Transitional Services

62.722.914.4

65.927.07.1

69.625.15.4

80.511.97.5

77.111.711.2

65.94.6

29.5

79.214.95.9

86.56.96.6

65.020.414.6

%%

Work ReleaseInmates


n

23.980

41.033

50.245

2.679

2.113

7.444

9.672

8.442

13.437

n

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Issuance of social security card (N = 412)NoYesDo not need

Contact DMV (N = 460)NoYesDo not need

Appy for state picture ID card (N = 463)NoYesDo not need

Qualify for food stamps (N = 452)NoYesDo not need

Qualify for SSI benefits (N = 432)NoYesDo not need

Qualify for veteran’s benefits (N = 347)NoYesDo not need

Discussed submission of FAFSA (N = 453)NoYesDo not need

Began FAFSA (N = 448)NoYesDo not need

Obtained new birth certificate (N = 415)NoYesDo not need

263517

27512

23516

58148

561113

481022

531512

616

13

352916

2579459

27111129

28610322

3314931

3174846

27019

121

3246124

3532827

2678460

Note: Since these services are not needed for all inmates, the present analysis excludes those inmates who indicated thatthey “did not need” a specific transitional service.

χχχχχ2



expectations and requirements and prevent the spreadof infectious diseases. According to the results shownin Graph 5, greater than one-half of all inmates indicatedthat they had completed a parole orientation course(56.9%), while only one-quarter of inmates hadcompleted an infectious disease education course(26.6%). Moreover, these results did not significantlyvary by type of institution. That is, both WR center andgeneral population inmates were equally likely to indicatethat they had not received these courses.

Similar to providing instructional courses on matterssuch as parole and infectious diseases, it is requiredthat inmates be periodically given the opportunity toreview and update their Individual Reentry ProgramPlans (IRPP). All incoming inmates are expected toparticipate in the development of their IRPP as well asreview their IRPP with their case manager on at least abiannual basis. Likewise, each paroling or dischargingoffender is supposed to receive a complete aftercareplan. It is anticipated that the aftercare plan will serveas a supplement to each offender’s IRPP.7

As shown in Graph 5, however, a vast majority ofinmates indicated that they had not received anaftercare plan or met with their case manager to updatetheir IRPP. At the time that the survey was administered(i.e., within 90 days of possible release), only 12.9% ofall inmates had reviewed a copy of their aftercare plan.However, WR center inmates were significantly morelikely to indicate that they had reviewed a copy of theiraftercare plan compared to inmates in the generalpopulation. Roughly 2 out of every 10 WR inmatessignified that they had reviewed a copy of their aftercareplan (20.3%) compared to 1 out of every 10 generalpopulation inmates (11.5%).

A greater proportion of inmates indicated that theyhad met with their case managers to review or updatetheir IRPPs. However, this proportion was limited toonly about one-third of all inmates. Only 31.4% of allinmates indicated that they had met with their casemanager to update their IRPP. While a greaterpercentage of WR center inmates had met with theircase managers to update their IRPP (38.0%), it wasnot enough to be statistically significant from thepercentage of general population inmates who also hadreviewed their IRPPs (30.2%).

Lastly, Graph 5 shows the percentage of inmatesthat said they had either been given contact informationfor a community service provider or had scheduled an

actual appointment with such a provider. It is ratherapparent that very few inmates are receiving suchservices. Less than ten percent of all inmates statedthat they had been given the contact information of acommunity services provider (9.0%) and fewer thanfive percent had actually scheduled an appointment(4.5%). These results did not vary significantly acrossinstitution type. As a result, roughly the same percentageof inmates in WR centers and the general populationfacilities had received these services.

Transitional Services and Prisoner ReentryAs noted previously, many offenders need

assistance in completing basic documents andapplications prior to release in order to ease theirtransition to the community. Table 7 displays the resultsfor the delivery of specific transitional services toinmates by type of institution. Given that some of theseservices are not necessary for all prisoners, inmateswere given the option to indicate that they “do not need”a particular transitional service.

Nonetheless, the findings in Table 7 illustrate thatmost soon-to-be released prisoners could use manyof the transitional services, but generally had notreceived them. For instance, a large percentage ofinmates indicated that they could use help in obtainingand completing a Free Application for Federal StudentAid” or FAFSA (approximately 83.0% to 96.0%depending on type of institution). However, onlybetween 6.0% and 16.0% of inmates had eitherdiscussed the submission of an FAFSA or begun the


Generally, many inmates had been told bycorrectional staff how to apply for a state issuedpicture ID and how to contact the Division ofMotor Vehicles regarding a driver’s license.

A substantial proportion of prisoners had eitheralready had their social security card reissuedor were in the process of getting them at thetime the survey was administered.

WR center inmates were significantly morelikely than general population inmates to indicatethat they had been told how to contact the DMVregarding a driver’s license and that they hadbeen instructed on how to apply for a stateissued picture ID card.

7 Inmate paroling to a detainer or another sentence are notnot expected to have an aftercare plan completed. How-ever, aftercare plans are required to be completed oninmates paroling to pending charges.

2 9

323

45

282824

251936

381329

292130

341432

411821

397

34

40.03.8

56.3

35.035.030.0

31.323.845.0

47.516.336.2

36.326.237.5

42.517.540.0

51.322.526.3

48.78.8

42.5

Communtiy Services

19147

161

174117111

176103123

2168795

2099596

22079

101

2348977

20342

154

47.911.740.4

43.329.127.6

43.825.630.6

54.221.923.9

52.323.824.0

55.019.825.3

58.422.319.3

50.910.538.6

%%

Work ReleaseInmates


n

8.919

1.999

6.801

5.512

8.243

7.377

2.214

.524

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Mental Heath Treatment (N = 479)NoYesDo not need

Drug Treatment (N = 482)NoYesDo not need

Alcohol Treatment (N = 482)NoYesDo not need

Counseling (N = 478)NoYesDo not need

Education Program (N = 480)NoYesDo not need

Job Training Program (N = 480)NoYesDo not need

Health Care (N = 480)NoYesDo not need

Childcare (N = 479)NoYesDo not need

Table 8. Crosstabulation for Community Service Contacts Upon Release by Institution Type (N = 496)

n

**

*

*

*

χχχχχ2

process of completing the application.Similar results were found in regards to whether

inmates could qualify for food stamps. Roughly 90.0%to 93.0% of inmates responded that they could benefitfrom a discussion with their case manager or othercorrectional staff member about the possibility of beingeligible for food stamps upon release. Yet, only 12.0%

to 18.0% had actually discussed this topic with acorrectional staff person.

The results presented in Table 7 further show thata) some transitional services are provided at a higherrate than others and b) WR center inmates tend toreceive these services at a higher rate than inmates inthe general population. Generally, many inmates had


been told by correctional staff how to apply for a stateissued picture ID and how to contact the Division ofMotor Vehicles regarding a driver’s license. Likewise,many inmates had either already had their socialsecurity card reissued or were in the process of gettingthem at the time the survey was administered.However, the type of institution in which the inmate wasbeing confined heavily influenced whether or not he orshe was likely to have received these services.

Consistent with other findings in this report, a greaterproportion of WR center inmates indicated that theyhad many of these services at a higher rate than theircounterparts in general population institutions. Forinstance, WR center inmates were significantly morelikely than general population inmates to indicate thatthey had been told how to contact the DMV regarding adriver’s license (chi-square = 41.033; p < .001). Two-thirds of WR center inmates indicated that they hadbeen told how to contact the DMV for a driver’s license(63.8%) compared to less than thirty percent of inmatesin general population facilities (27.0%).

In addition, inmates in WR centers were significantlymore likely than general population prisoners to specifythat they had been instructed on how to apply for a stateissued picture ID card (chi-square = 50.245; p < .001).While only one-quarter of general population inmatessaid they had been told how to apply for state issuedpicture ID cards (63.8%), two-thirds of WR centerinmates had received this service (25.1%). Similarresults were also found for the issuance of socialsecurity cards and obtaining new birth certificates forinmates. It is interesting to note, however, that generalpopulation inmates were much less likely to signifythat they needed assistance with a FAFSA . Perhapsthese inmates simply do not plan on seeking moreeducation upon release or are aware that they may notbe eligible for such benefits under Federal law.

Community Service Contacts Upon Release byInstitution Type

A critical component to successful reentry for manyinmates is the continuity of mental health andsubstance abuse treatment as well as other educationaland health care services they received whileincarcerated. Table 8 displays the results of a chi-square test for differences in the delivery of communityservice contacts by institution type. Inmates wereasked to indicate whether they had various servicesand/or treatments “set up so they could receive themafter release from prison.”

As shown in Table 8, many of the inmates indicatedthat they “do not need” many of the services in thecommunity. As somewhat anticipated, the findings

further show that WR center inmates may requirefewer community services upon release. WR inmateswere less likely to report the need for mental healthand substance abuse treatment, counseling, educationand job training programs, health care, and child careservices upon release. In particular, WR inmates weresignificantly less likely to indicate that they will requiremental health (chi-square = 8.919; p < .01) and alcoholtreatment (chi-square = 6.081; p < .05) as well aseducation (chi-square = 8.243; p < .05) and job trainingservices (chi-square = 7.377; p < .05).

A majority of WR center inmates said they will notneed mental health treatment services upon release(56.3%). This is compared to forty percent of generalpopulation inmates (40.4%). In like manner, a greaterpercentage of WR inmates indicated not needing alcoholtreatment once in the community compared to inmatesin the general population. Forty-five percent of WRinmates indicated the need for alcohol treatment afterrelease compared to only thirty percent of generalpopulation inmates (30.6%).

Similar results were found in levels of need foreducational and vocational skills training in thecommunity. It appears that WR center inmates maybe better prepared to obtain meaningful employmentafter release. Over one-third of WR inmates indicated


Graph 6. Helpfulness of Parole Officer forCommunity Transition (N = 291)

Not helpfulat all

(10 .0%)

Not too helpful(28 .1%)

Helpfu l(39 .2%)

Very helpful(22 .7%)

Note: A total of 31 cases contained missing information.Analysis includes only those offenders who anticipate beingunder parole supervision after release from prison.

they will not require assistance in furthering theireducation upon release (37.5%). This is compared toless than one-quarter of general population inmates(24.0%). At the same time, general population inmatesappear to be in greater need of job skills training. Onlyone-quarter of general population inmates signified thatthey will not need assistance in locating a job training

program after release (25.3%). This is compared to40.0% of WR inmates. Hence, these findings suggestthat WR inmates may be better equipped to findemployment once released from incarcerationcompared to their counterparts in general populationfacilities.

At the same time, however, these results also

3 1

Graph 7. Percentage of Inmates Reporting Expectations About Economic and Job-Related DifficultiesUpon Release by Type of Institution and Total Sample

Percentage

Make enough moneyto support yourself(N = 485)

Find a place to live(N = 486)

Have enough food(N = 484)

Find a job* (N = 484)

Keep a job (N = 483)

Pay off debts

General Population Inmates

Work Release Inmates

Total Sample of Release Inmates

10 20 30 40 50 60

*χ2 = 5.690; p < .01Table shows the percentage of inmates indicating that it will be at least “somewhat difficult or hard” tocomplete each economic barrier.

(N = 483)



indicate that many inmates who may require suchservices may not be receiving them. In terms of drugtreatment, for instance, approximately one-third of allinmates indicated that they had not been set up toreceive treatment upon release. Moreover, it appearsthat WR and general population inmates were nearlyequally likely to need drug treatment in the communitybut fewer general population inmates were prepared toreceive it upon release. Thirty-five percent of WRinmates indicated that they were not set up to receivedrug treatment services in the community, comparedto slightly below thirty percent of inmates in generalpopulation institutions (29.1%).

This also appears to be the case for other servicecontacts in the community. Similar to the results fordrug treatment, roughly one-quarter of all inmates inneed of treatment services for alcohol abuse were notset up to receive them upon release. Likewise, one-quarter of all inmates had not been set up to receivefurther educational training, regardless of the institutiontype. In addition, slightly less than one-quarter ofinmates in need of health care service were not set upto receive them after release from incarceration. In

short, these findings suggest that improvements couldbe made to better ensure that offenders will continuenecessary services and/or treatments once releasedfrom confinement.

Prisoner Attitudes and Expectations for After ReleaseThe final section of this report examines the post-

release expectations of prisoners. Previous researchtells us that as prisoners begin to reenter the communitythey can potentially face a wide range of economic,social, and legal difficulties. While most studies havefound prisoners to be rather optimistic about thechallenges they will face upon release, it is also knownthat a large percentage of offenders return to prisonwithin three years of release. Thus, the extent to whichoffenders are successful in dealing with known barriersto reintegration may ultimately determine whether ornot they will return to the criminal justice system.

In addition, recent research on former prisonerspoints to the importance of examining individual attitudesand expectations of life after release. Inmates that havea more positive view of their future may also be lesslikely to recidivate. Furthermore, by assessing the

Table 9. Prisoner Expectations of Substance Abuse and Legal Difficulties after Release

Substance Abuse

355129484

343143486

40382

485

40777

484

78.521.5

100.0

76.223.8

100.0

81.218.8

100.0

83.816.2

100.0

% N

Not abuse alcohol Not harda

Hard Total

Not take illegal drugs Not hard Hard Total

Stay out of legal trouble Not hard Hard Total

Stay out of prison Not hard Hard Total

293112405

282124406

33867

405

34064

404

72.327.7

100.0

69.530.5

100.0

83.516.5

100.0

84.215.8

100.0

%

Work ReleaseInmates


73.326.7

100.0

70.629.4

100.0

83.116.9

100.0

84.115.9

100.0

Total Sampleof Inmates

621779

611980

651580

671380

%n

aThe “Not Hard” category includes “Not hard at all”, “Not too hard”, and “Somewhat hard”. The “Hard” category includes“Very hard”.

n

Legal Difficulties

perceptions of inmates and the difficulties they expectto encounter it may be possible to develop a betterunderstanding of the type of services needed to assistoffenders reintegrating back into the community. Thus,this section of the report examines inmate expectationsand feelings of preparedness prior to release.

Parole Officers and Prisoner ReintegrationParole officers can be very helpful in assisting

prisoners as they move from the structure of aninstitutional environment to the community. In offenderreentry programs such as the WVORI, parole officersserve as both protectors of public safety throughsurveillance and as a source for referrals in an effort toconnect prisoners with community resources. As aresult, parole officers play a critical role in an offender’ssuccess or failure as he/she seeks to reintegrate backinto the community. Often many ex-prisoners relyheavily on their parole officers to help them locate andobtain basic transitional services, particularly in the initialmonths after release.

As a result, it is important to consider theexpectations of inmates as they relate to the helpfulnessof their parole officers. Graph 6 displays the distributionof prisoner responses to the question: “How helpful doyou expect your parole officer to be with your transitionback to the community?” Based on the results shownin Graph 6, it is rather apparent that a substantialproportion of prisoners expect that their parole officerwill be helpful (39.2%) or very helpful in their transition

back to the community (22.7%). As a result, nearlytwo-thirds of all soon-to-be-released prisoners expecttheir parole officer to assist them as they reintegrateback into society. Only 1 out of every 10 inmatesindicated that they expected their parole officer to “notbe helpful at all.” Hence, these findings underscorethe notion that prisoners often rely heavily on paroleofficers to help them overcome many of the potentialbarriers they will face after release. This sectionexamines some of the potential economic, social andlegal barriers inmates may encounter as they transitionback to the community.

Prisoner Expectations of Economic DifficultiesInmate expectations for the economic difficulties

they expect to face upon release are presented in Graph7. Displayed is the percentage of inmates indicatingthat it will be at least “somewhat hard” or “difficult” forthem to overcome each economic or job-relatedobstacle or potential barrier.

The findings clearly illustrate that prisonersanticipate a wide range of economic and job-relateddifficulties after release. Moreover, many of the factorsthat are expected to be difficult for prisoners toovercome are similar, regardless of the offender’sstatus (i.e., work release or general population). Forinstance, more than half of all inmates anticipate a greatdeal of difficulty in making enough money to support

Graph 8. Likelihood of Rearrest (N = 496)

Not likely at all(56.4%)

Not too likely (29.5%)

Somewhat Likely

Likely (3.3%)

Very Likely (2.3%)

Note: A total of 12 cases contained missing information.

(8.5%)

Graph 9. Likelihood of Returning to Prison(N = 496)

Not likely at all(63.1%)

Not too likely (26.7%)

Somewhat Likely(6.0%)

Likely (2.3%)Very Likely (2.3%)

Note: A total of 13 cases contained missing information.



themselves (53.6%) and paying off debts (50.7%).Likewise, one-third of all inmates believe it will be atleast somewhat hard to find a place to live (34.8%) andto find a job (34.3%).

However, some of the results vary by the type ofinstitution in which the inmate is confined. Generally,inmates in general population institutions appear toanticipate greater difficulties after release. Theseinmates believe it will be more difficult to make enoughmoney to support themselves, find a place to live, finda job, and pay off debts compared to their WRcounterparts. Over one-third of general populationinmates believed it will be difficult to find a place to live(35.7%), while more than one-half felt that it would bedifficult to pay off debts (51.6%). Roughly sixteenpercent of inmates in WR release centers respondedthat it would be difficult to keep a job or maintainemployment (16.4%)

Yet, only the difficulties associated with finding ajob after release were statistically significant acrosstype of institution. As somewhat anticipated, prisonersin general population institutions were significantly morelikely to anticipate encountering difficulties in finding ajob (chi-square = 50.245; p < .001). Over one-third ofgeneral population inmates expected that it will bedifficult to find a job after release. This is compared toonly 1 in 10 or 20.3% of WR inmates.

Prisoner Expectations of Future Substance Abuseand Legal Difficulties

Table 9 displays the distribution of responses forprisoner expectations of substance abuse and legaldifficulties after release. For the total sample ofprisoners, a greater percentage of inmates felt theymay have substantial difficulty in refraining from abusingalcohol or drugs compared to legal problems. Nearlythirty percent of all inmates indicated that they wouldfind it at least somewhat difficult or hard to not abusealcohol (26.7%) or illegal drugs (29.4%). On the otherhand, however, fewer than twenty percent of prisonersbelieved that it would be hard for them to stay out oflegal trouble (16.9%) or prison (15.9%) in the future.

The findings shown in Table 9 further indicate thatthere is little variation in prisoner expectations acrossthe different institution types on substance abuse andlegal issues. While general population inmates wereslightly more likely to expect difficulties with the abuseof drugs or alcohol, none of the differences werestatistically significant. For instance, 27.7% of generalpopulation inmates anticipated some difficulty inrefraining from alcohol abuse compared to 21.5% ofWR inmates. Similarly, just over thirty percent ofinmates in general population institutions indicated that

it may be difficult to stay away from illegal drugs(30.5%), while roughly one-quarter of WR inmates feltthe same way (23.8%)

As for future legal problems, a vast majority ofinmates -- regardless of their status as WR or generalpopulation inmates -- did not believe it would be difficultto stay out of legal trouble or prison after release. Lessthan twenty percent of inmates indicated that it wouldbe difficult for them to stay out of legal trouble andprison. Moreover, inmates in WR centers and thegeneral population were equally likely to indicate thatthey would have few difficulties in this regard.

As shown in Table 9, only 18.8% of work releaseand 16.5% of general population inmates, respectively,believed it would be difficult for them to stay out of legaltrouble once released from prison. As a result, morethan eighty percent of prisoners in either type ofinstitution felt that it would not be difficult to stay out offuture legal trouble. In like manner, a vast majority ofinmates did not believe it would be difficult to stay outof prison. Only 16.2% of WR inmates and 15.8% ofprisoners in general population institutions believed itwould be at least somewhat difficult for them to stayout of prison.

Finally, prisoners were asked to report the actuallikelihood of being arrested for doing something illegalas well as returning to prison in the future. As shownin Graphs 8 and 9, it is rather clear that most inmatesbelieve their chances of being rearrested or returning


WR inmates were less likely to report the needfor mental health and substance abusetreatment, counseling, education and jobtraining programs, health care, and child careservices upon release.

Compared to general population inmates, WRcenter inmates may be better prepared to obtainmeaningful employment after release.

WR and general population inmates were nearlyequally likely to need drug treatment in thecommunity but fewer general population inmateswere prepared to receive it upon release.

Roughly one-quarter of all inmates in need oftreatment services for alcohol abuse were notset up to receive them upon release.

3 5

to prison in the future are very small. More than one-half of all inmates indicated that it is “not likely at all”that they will be rearrested for doing something illegalin the future (56.4%). Meanwhile, only 14.1% ofprisoners felt that it was at least “somewhat likely” theywould be arrested in the future.

Similar to rearrest, only a small percentage ofinmates felt that it was likely they would return to prisonin the future. Just over 1 out of every 10 inmatesindicated that it was at least “somewhat likely” theywould be incarcerated again in their lifetime (10.6%).As a result, a vast majority of inmates believed that itwas either “not too likely” (26.7%) or “not likely at all”(63.1%) that they would return to prison sometime inthe future. Based on these results, it appears that mostinmates are rather optimistic about their life after prison.

Prisoner “Preparedness for Release” and theApplication of Core Correctional Practices

The following section examines the extent to whichprisoners believe they are prepared for release.Inmates were asked how strongly they agreed ordisagreed with a series of items that measured keyaspects of offenders’ lives related to successful reentry.The items were intended to measure inmate feelingsof “preparedness” or “readiness” as it relates to several

known barriers to successful reentry. Such barriersmight include getting a job, going back to their families,having social supports, understanding their conditionsof parole, and obtaining suitable housing arrangements.

In addition to simply examining inmate self-appraisals of “readiness” or “preparedness” for release,we also conducted a bivariate analysis of therelationship between these self-appraisals and the useof core correctional practices (CCPs). Using the CCPmeasures examined in the first section of this report,we assessed the degree to which adherence to thesepractices influence prisoner self-appraisals ofreadiness or preparedness for release.

It is anticipated that those inmates who indicated,for instance, that correctional staff engaged in theeffective use of authority, provided appropriate models,applied proper reinforcement contingencies would bemore likely to indicate that they were more preparedfor life after release. Such results would provide supportfor the notion that when services are delivered in amanner that is consistent with the use of CCPs(whether actual or perceived), inmates believe they arebetter prepared to deal with potential barriers toreintegration and are more optimistic about theirchances to successfully reintegrate back into society.We begin by assessing the self-appraisal of inmatesin relation to their readiness for release.

Table 10. Inmate Rating of Preparedness for Release Items (N = 496)

5.8

4.5

8.3

6.8

5.4

18.2

12.7

7.2

Preparedness for release

36.0

35.3

35.4

34.0

42.4

27.3

37.5

34.2

%% NI feel prepared to get a job upon release.

I feel comfortable going back to my family.

I am comfortable with my housing situation uponrelease.

I know where I’m going to live when I leave here.

I know what is expected of me upon release.

It will be easy to pay my bills after release.

It will be easy to find a good place to live whenI leave here.

I have people I can depend on when I am released.

12.4

9.1

12.2

12.0

8.5

36.2

16.5

7.5

DisagreeStronglyDisagree Agree

Stronglyagree

483

485

483

483

484

483

480

483

45.8

51.1

44.1

47.2

43.8

18.2

33.3

51.1

% %


Effe

ctiv

e Us

e of

Aut

horit

y

Stru

ctur

e Sc

ale

In

terp

erso

nal D

omin

atio

n Sc

ale

F

irm B

ut F

air

Dis

cipl

ine

Scal

e

App

ropr

iate

Mod

elin

g &

Rei

nfor

cem

ent

R

ole

Play

ing/

Reh

ears

al S

cale

Ef

fect

ive

Dis

appr

oval

Sca

le

Effe

ctiv

e R

einf

orce

men

t Sca

le

Mod

elin

g Sc

ale

Use

of

Skill

Bui

ldin

g an

dPr

oble

m-S

olvi

ng S

trat

egie

s

Cog

nitiv

e Sk

ills D

evel

opm

ent S

cale

P

robl

em S

olvi

ng S

cale

Effe

ctiv

e Us

e of

Com

mun

ityR

esou

rces

A

dvoc

acy

or B

roke

rage

Sca

le

Qua

lity

of I

nter

pers

onal

Rel

atio

nshi

ps

Res

pect

Sca

le

Staf

f Car

es A

bout

Me

O

penn

ess

Scal

e

Trus

t Sca

le

Sta

ff C

omm

itmen

t Sca

le

Sta

ff C

ompe

tenc

y Sc

ale

Prep

ared

to g

et a

job

Com

fort

able

retu

rnin

gto

fam

ily

Com

fort

able

with

hou

sing

situ

atio

n

.129

.128

-.085

.108

.152

.244

.103

.071

.132

.215

.222

.185

.159

.159

.143

.114

.149

.143 .111

.108

.116

.115

.081

-.079

.106

.118

.250

.058

.047

.124

.178

.228

.106

.057

.057

.121

.114

.131

.131

.062

.114

.099

.190

.183

-.116

.156

.188

.322

.145

.074

.165

.262

.268

.220

.166

.166

.177

.146

.180

.183

.137

.157

.135

.079

.092

-.024

.078

.075

.205

.061

.011

.042

.153

.162

.117

.075

.075

.103

.074 .111

.139

.074

.083

.040

185

.189

-.116

.133

.117

.233

.127

.009

.125

.203

.187

.175

.122 12

2

.124

.129

.097

.117

.131

.120

.096

.222

.189

-.148

.204

.234

.255

.180

.159

.218

.243

.224

.235

.264

.264

.232

.153

.237

.223

.206

.201

.175

.140

.134

-.082 .11

5

.188

.321

.154

.071

.134

.255

.261

.215

.129

.129

.108

.123

.141

.128

.076

.120

.081

.133

.170

-.079

.077

.125

.234

.091

.016

.142

.181

.173

.154

.063

.063

.112

.077

.091

.126

.071

.116

.121

.148

.138

-.080

.139

.149

.266

.124

.052

.112

.210

.212

.176

.143

.14

3

.140

.117

.144

.135

.099

.112

.108

Tabl

e 11

. C

orre

latio

n of

Inm

ate’

s Pe

rcep

tion

of C

CP

with

Inm

ate

Prep

ared

for

Rel

ease

I kn

ow w

here

I’m g

oing

to l

ive

I kn

ow w

hat

is e

xpec

ted

of m

e

Easy

to

pay

my

bills

Easy

to

find

ago

od p

lace

to l

ive

Peop

leto

dep

end

on

Prep

ared

ness

for

Rel

ease

Sca

le

** ** * ***

***

***

** ***

***

***

** ** * ** ** ** **

** ***

** ***

* ** ***

***

***

* * ** * **

** ** ** ** ***

** * ***

***

***

** ** * * ** ** * * *

* ***

***

***

* * * **

***

***

* ** * ***

** ** ***

***

***

** ** ** ** * * ** ** *

***

***

** ***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

** ** * ***

***

* ** ***

***

***

***

***

** * ***

** * * *

* * * ***

** ***

***

* * * ** ** * *

***

** * ***

***

***

** ***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

** ***

**

*p <

.10;

**p

< .0

5; *

**p

< .0

01.

Prisoner Self-Appraisals of “Preparedness forRelease”

Table 10 displays the distribution of inmates’ ratingsof their preparedness for release. As noted before,previous studies have found that most prisoners areoptimistic about their lives after release and being ableto stay out of the criminal justice system. Our resultsare consistent with the findings from many previousstudies.

As shown in Table 10, a large majority of inmatesindicated that they felt prepared for release. Despitethe fact that our previous results denoted that someinmates had not received many of the transitionalservices, most inmates felt rather prepared for release.More than eighty percent of prisoners agreed (36.0%)or strongly agreed (45.8%) that they felt “prepared toget a job upon release.” However, it is interesting thatfar fewer inmates felt that it would “be easy to pay [their]bills after release.” Only 45.5% of all prisoners agreedor strongly agreed that they would have few problemspaying their bills after release. Thus, it is clear thatmany inmates are concerned about being able tosupport themselves after release. This suggests thatwhile many inmates feel that they can find employmentupon release, they are less confident that they will finda job that pays enough for them to keep out of financialtrouble.

Similar results were found in relation to securingsuitable housing or living arrangements after release.While approximately 8 out of every 10 prisonersindicated that they were “comfortable with [their]housing situation” (79.5%) or “know where [they] aregoing to live when [they] leave [prison]” (81.2%), a slightlysmaller percentage of inmates believed it would be“easy to find a good place to live when [they] leave[prison]” (70.8%). Though many inmates feel goodabout their prospects for finding appropriate livingarrangements, these results also indicate that roughlytwenty percent of prisoners do not feel comfortableabout their housing situation and nearly one-third donot believe it will be easy to find a good place to live.

The availability of social supports is anotherimportant factor for determining whether offenders willbe successful at reintegrating back into society. Inmany instances, having an adequate degree of socialsupports can insulate prisoners from the impact of otherpotential barriers to reintegration. For instance, thepresence of social supports may provide the ex-offenderwith something to fall back on if they run into financialdifficulties or need a place to live. Social supports maycome in the form of family or friends who will assist the

ex-offenders as they seek to transition from prison tothe community.

The results presented in Table 10 illustrate that mostprisoners are optimistic about the presence of socialsupports upon release. For instance, more than eightypercent of prisoners reported that they felt “comfortablegoing back to [their] family” after release (86.4%). Inlike manner, nearly the same percentage of inmatesindicated that they had “people [they] can depend onwhen they are released” (85.3%). Hence, it appearsthat a majority of prisoners expect to have a good systemof social supports as they make the transition from theprison to the community.

Lastly, it is essential for inmates to be cognizant ofthe behavioral expectations placed on them by theirparole officers and others after they are released fromprison. Therefore, inmates are required to develop anaftercare plan with their case managers and toparticipate in a parole orientation course prior to releaseunder the WVORI. These efforts are designed toprovide prisoners with clear information on theexpectations placed on them prior to their release.

Based on the findings presented in Table 10, morethan eighty-five percent of inmates agreed or stronglyagreed that they “[knew] what [was] expected of [them]upon release” (86.2%). However, these results are incontrast to some of the results presented earlier. Forinstance, only forty percent of all prisoners hadcompleted a parole orientation course (43.1%) and12.9% had reviewed a copy of their aftercare plan atthe time the survey was administered. Nevertheless,

3 7


Nearly two-thirds of prisoners expect theirparole officer to assist them as they reintegrateback into society. Only 1 out of every 10inmates indicated that they expected theirparole officer to “not be helpful at all.”

Many inmates anticipate it will be difficult forthem to make enough money to supportthemselves, pay off debts, find a place to live,and to find a job.

Inmates in general population institutionsbelieve it will be more difficult for them to makeenough money to support themselves, find aplace to live, find a job, and pay off debtscompared to their WR counterparts.


a vast majority of inmates appear to know what isexpected of them after release.

WVORI Service Delivery through Core CorrectionalPractices and Inmates’ “Preparedness for Release”

The bivariate results between core correctionalpractices and prisoner evaluations of preparedness orreadiness for release are presented in Table 11. Theresults are presented for both the individual indicatorsof CCP and composite measures. Compositemeasures were constructed for each of the major CCPdomains (e.g., effective use of authority, appropriatemodeling and reinforcement, quality of interpersonalrelationships, etc.). Likewise, a “preparedness forrelease” scale was developed using the individualindicators listed in Table 10.

As shown in Table 11, all of the CCP compositemeasures and most of the individual indicators weresignificantly correlated with prisoner self-appraisals ofpreparedness for release. In addition, all of the itemsvaried in the expected direction. That is, for all of thecomposite measures and individual indicators (with theexception of interpersonal domination) the use of CCPswas significantly and positively related to inmatepreparedness for release. Therefore, as inmateperception of proper service delivery increased, so didtheir belief that they were prepared for release. Hence,it can be argued that inmate readiness for release issignificantly impacted by whether or not they perceivethat their services were delivered in a manner that wasconsistent with CCPs.

For every CCP composite measure, a strong andpositive correlation between the use of CCPs andinmate preparedness for release was found. While allof the CCP composite measures were statisticallysignificant, the use of skill building and problem solvingstrategies was the strongest (Pearson’s R = .262; p <.001). These findings suggest that when cognitive skilldevelopment and problem-solving strategies are usedby counselors and other correctional staff to teachoffenders new ways of thinking and resolving problems,prisoners felt they were better prepared for release.

The individual indicators that make up this compositemeasure were also some of the strongest and mostconsistent correlates across all of the items thatcomprise the preparedness for release scale. Forinstance, the use of cognitive skills developmentstrategies was significantly correlated with beingprepared to get a job upon release (.261), beingconfident it will be easy for them to pay their bills (.224),finding a good place to live (.222), and having peoplethey can depend upon after release (.228). Thesefindings illustrate that when inmates are taught how toavoid “thinking errors,” how to reflect on their own


behaviors and how to change them, they are muchmore likely to feel that they have been prepared for

release.Likewise, inmates who indicated that correctional

staff helped them in developing problem-solving skillswere also more likely to indicate that they were preparedfor release. For multiple indicators of preparedness,as correctional staff’s use of problem-solvingtechniques increased, so did inmates’ confidence that


All of the CCP composite measures and mostof the individual indicators were significantlycorrelated with prisoner self-appraisals ofpreparedness for release. In addition, all of theitems varied in the expected direction.

As inmate perception of proper service deliveryincreased, so did the belief that they wereprepared for release.

When inmates indicated that they were taughthow to avoid “thinking errors,” how to reflect ontheir own behaviors and how to change them,they are much more likely feel that they havebeen prepared for release.

Inmates that reported correctional staff helpedthem in developing problem-solving skills werealso more likely to indicate that they wereprepared for release.

The more inmates indicated that they had beengiven the opportunity to practice dealing withtheir problems in the right way, the moreprepared they felt they were for life after prison.

As the quality of the inmate-staff relationshipincreased (e.g., more respectful, open, trusting,and caring), prisoners were more likely toindicate that they were prepared for making thetransition back to the community.

Prisoners that indicated staff were engaged inhelping them find a job, a place to live, andlinking them to community services weresignificantly more likely to indicate they wereprepared for release.

3 9

they were ready for release. High scores on the use ofproblem-solving strategies was significantly correlatedwith a prisoners’ belief that it would be easy for him/herto pay their bills (.238), find a place to live (.185), andobtain a job after release (.215). Therefore, inmateswho worked with staff that viewed their problemsrealistically and at the same time helped them developand place their plans for release into action, weresignificantly more likely to indicate that they wereprepared for release.

In terms of the effective use of authority, inmateswho felt that the rules of the institution were enforcedfairly for all inmates and that staff did not interact withprisoners in a hostile or demeaning way weresignificantly more likely to say they were prepared forrelease (Pearson’s R = .190; p <.001). Higher scoreson prison structure were significantly correlated withinmates’ readiness for release (.183). As a result,inmates who felt that the rules of the institution wereclear were also significantly more likely to indicate thatthey knew what was expected of them upon release(.189), that it would be easy for them to pay their bills(.189), and they felt comfortable going back to theirfamilies (.170).

In addition, inmates’ overall preparedness forrelease was also inversely related with the use ofinterpersonal domination on the part of correctional staff(-.116). However, only two individual indicators of aninmate’s readiness for release were significantly relatedto the use of interpersonal domination on the part ofstaff. In particular, high scores on the interpersonaldomination scale were associated with inmates beingless confident in their ability to pay their bills upon release(-.148) or to know what was expected of them uponrelease (-.116). In contrast, inmates who felt thatcorrectional staff used a firm but fair approach todisciplinary practices were significantly more likely tobe ready for release (.156). A firm but fair approach todisciplinary practices on the part of correctional staffwas significantly correlated with prisoners reporting thatit would be easy for them to pay their bills (.204), thatthey were comfortable with their living situation (.139),and that they knew what was expected of them uponrelease (.133).

Similar to the effective use of authority, these resultsalso show the importance of correctional staff usingappropriate modeling and reinforcements in thecorrectional setting. There was a strong positive andsignificant relationship between the presence ofappropriate models and the use of reinforcements bycorrectional staff and inmates’ readiness for release(Pearson’s R = .188; p < .001). This finding, along withthe significant relationship between the use of skill

building strategies, provides strong support to thegeneral responsivity principle and the use of cognitivebehavioral models in treatment programming. All ofthe individual indicators for this construct, with theexception of the use of positive reinforcements, weresignificantly related to inmate preparedness for release.

In particular, there was an especially strongrelationship between the use of role-playing/rehearsaltechniques on the part of staff and inmates’preparedness for release. In fact, compared to all otherCCP indicators, the use of role-playing and rehearsaltechniques was the strongest correlate of inmatepreparedness for release (.322). The more inmatesindicated that they had been given the opportunity topractice dealing with their problems in the right way,the more prepared they felt they were for life afterprison.

Significant relationships were also found for thepresence of modeling (.165) as well as the effectiveuse of disapproval techniques (.145). In terms ofmodeling, inmates who indicated that correctional staffprovided a good example of how to live and stay out oftrouble were significantly more likely to indicate it wouldbe easy for them to pay their bills after release (.218),felt comfortable about going back to their families (.142),and indicated that they were prepared to get a job uponrelease (.134). Moreover, inmates who indicated thatstaff engaged in effective disapproval techniques werealso significantly more likely to be prepared for release(Pearson’s R = .145; .01). In particular, these inmateswere significantly more likely to indicate that they wereprepared to get a job (.154) after release and it wouldbe easy for them to pay their bills after release (.180).

Quality of inmate-staff interpersonal relationshipswas also a significant correlate of inmates’ self-appraisal of preparedness for release (Pearson’s R =.177; p < .001). Simply put, as the relationship betweenstaff and prisoners become more respectful, open,trusting, and caring, inmates were more likely to indicatethat they were prepared for making the transition backto the community. The strongest correlations for theinterpersonal relationship variables were found betweenthe staff openness (.183) and staff cares about mescales (.180) and the preparedness for release scale.Essentially, inmate-staff relationships that weredeemed to be caring and open appear to have beenmore effective at preparing inmates for release.Nevertheless, relationships characterized by mutualrespect and trust were also strongly related to inmatepreparedness for release. Both were significantlyrelated to inmates’ preparedness for release at the .001probability level.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative(WVORI) was developed and implemented based onthe recognition that more prisoners than ever beforeare being released from our state prisons. As aconsequence of the continuous growth in the prisonpopulation, there have been record highs in the numberof prisoners being released from WVDOC custody inrecent years. In 2005, more prisoners were releasedfrom WV correctional facilities than in any previous year.A total of 2,154 prisoners were released from WVDOCcustody in 2005, up 10.4% from 1,953 inmates in 2004.Unfortunately, this is a pattern that has been presentsince 2000. Between 2000 and 2005, the number ofprisoners released from WVDOC custody increasedby 68.8%, from 1,336 inmates released in 2000 to 2,157in 2005 (Lester and Haas, 2006).

This sustained growth in the number of prisonersbeing released from WV prisons has accentuated theneed for comprehensive reentry programming.Accordingly, the WVORI was established in mid-2004in an effort to provide a continuum of reentry servicesto offenders as they transitioned from prison to thecommunity. The primary goal of the WVORI is to putinto practice a case management system that wouldensure the continuity of services and programming foroffenders from the time they enter the system until theyare ultimately reintegrated back into the community. Acentral component of this continuum of services,however, is its emphasis on providing transitionalservices to prisoners nearing release.

The community-based transition phase, or PhaseII of the WVORI, begins six months prior to release fromthe institution and continues through the offender’sparole supervision. During this phase, offenders aregiven an array of transitional services that includes thereassessment and development of an aftercare plan,an infectious disease course, a parole orientationcourse, and the scheduling of regular contacts withcase managers and parole officers. In addition, thisphase serves to link the offender to various communityprograms such as educational and or vocational trainingprograms, substance abuse treatment, employmentservices, and religious or faith-based services. It isanticipated that these services will reduce many of thebarriers to successful reentry that prisoners are likelyto encounter after release and that they will ultimatelylessen the likelihood that the offender will return to thesystem.

Consistent with the primary objectives of the largerprocess evaluation, this report focused on the extent to


In like manner, prisoner perceptions of thecompetence and commitment of correctional staff alsoappears to be associated with inmate preparednessfor release. As inmates’ perceptions of staffcommitment and competence increased, so did theirconfidence that they were prepared to reenter society.Strong positive correlations were found between staffcommitment (.157) and skill factors (.135) and theinmate preparedness for release scale.

Finally, the effective use of community resourceswas found to be a significant factor impacting thedegree to which inmates felt they were prepared forreentry (Pearson’s R = .166; p < .001). Inmates whofelt that staff were engaged in helping them find a job,a place to live, and linking them to community serviceswere significantly more likely to indicate they wereprepared for release. Prisoners were significantly morelikely to indicate it would be easy for them to pay theirbills after release (.264) as well as find a place to live(.159). Likewise, these inmates were more likely toreport that they were comfortable with their housingsituation (.143), prepared to get a job upon release(.129), and know what was expected of them uponrelease (.122). Thus, when correctional staff were seenby inmates as seeking to identify appropriate sourcesof referral for them and speaking on their behalf tocommunity organizations, prisoners tended to feel moreprepared for release.

which these transitional services were being providedto prisoners nearing release. However, we were notonly interested in knowing whether the services hadbeen provided, but also whether they were beingdelivered in an effective manner. This is because recentresearch tells us that how services are delivered is asimportant to program success as what interventionsare delivered and to whom (Butler and Bird, 2000; Butlerand Bird, 2000; Preston, 2000; Leschied, 2000). Whilemany researchers rush to study offender outcomes (i.e.,recidivism), there remains a need to better understandhow interventions and services are being applied andwhether they are being delivered in a manner that wouldsuggest they should work. Indeed, recent outcomestudies on offender reentry programs have underscoredthe importance of proper implementation for obtainingreductions in recidivism (e.g., Wilson and Davis, 2006).

To assess the quality of reentry services deliveredto prisoners we turned to the empirical literature oneffective correctional interventions. This researchidentifies core correctional practices that have beenshown to result in greater reductions in recidivism.Originally identified by Andrews and Kiessling (1980),CCPs specify the staff characteristics and nature ofstaff-inmate relationships that have been found toenhance the therapeutic potential of correctionalinterventions. This study utilized these core correctionalpractices as a framework for studying the quality ofreentry services delivered to prisoners.

While most studies on CCP have used observationsof staff skills and their interaction with inmates andcompared the relative presence of CCPs to offenderoutcomes, this study used inmate survey responsesto measure these essential skills and qualities ofcorrectional staff. This is in light of recent research thatprovides evidence that inmate survey data can beeffectively used to obtain information about operationaldifferences between prisons, including staff-inmateinteractions (Camp, 1999; Camp, Gaes, Klein-Saffran,Daggett, and Saylor, 2002). Since CCPs are rooted instaff characteristics and the staff-inmate relationship,the use of inmate survey data provides a direct measureof whether these practices are perceived to beoperating in the prison environment or correctionalsetting. Moreover, due to the broad applicability of CCPto both front-line correctional officers as well astreatment staff, inmates have ample opportunity toevaluate their environment as well as staffcharacteristics and the quality of interactions they havewith staff.

Based on this approach, this study yieldedconsiderable information on the extent to whichtransitional services were being provided to prisoners

and the role of CCP in the delivery of these services.Generally, the results of this study suggest that theWVORI could benefit from greater adherence to CCP.It appears that the application of CCP is not as widelyspread as one might hope, at least from the perspectivesof inmates. For example, while prisoners reported thatthey were often given the opportunity to practice newbehaviors in prison, many did not feel that appropriatebehaviors were demonstrated for them by correctionalstaff nor that reinforcements were provided by prisonstaff on a regular basis. Likewise, many inmates didnot feel that correctional staff engaged in an effectiveuse of community resources by offering advocacy orbrokerage on their behalf or carried out problem-solvingactivities with them. Hence, a substantial proportion ofinmates felt that staff had not adequately helped themto develop a plan for release that could work, did notview their problems realistically, and that they had beengiven little assistance in putting their plans for releaseinto action from correction staff.

Another pattern that emerged from these data isthat while there was a high level of structure in thecorrectional facilities according to inmates, the qualityof interpersonal relationships between staff and inmateswas poor. It is clear that a vast majority of prisonersfelt that their institution provided a high degree of prisonstructure. Most inmates indicated that they knew whatwould happen to them if they violated the rules, whatwould get them written up by staff, and felt that the ruleswere clearly “spelled-out” in their institutions. However,


While many researchers rush to study offenderoutcomes, there remains a need to betterunderstand how interventions and services arebeing applied and whether they are beingdelivered in a manner that would suggest theyshould work.

This study utilized these core correctionalpractices as a framework for studying the qualityof reentry services delivered to prisoners.

Since CCPs are rooted in staff characteristicsand the staff-inmate relationship, the use ofinmate survey data provides a direct measureof whether these practices are perceived to beoperating in the prison environment orcorrectional setting.


it is apparent that many inmates also felt that prisonstaff used control and shaming practices rather thanfirm but fair disciplinary practices to gain complianceof inmates. In like manner, it appears that manycorrectional staff had not developed the high qualityinterpersonal relationships associated with thesuccessful delivery of correctional services. Inparticular, staff-inmate relationships were notcharacterized as caring, open, and trusting by manyprisoners.

On the other hand, a chief focus of this study wasto compare the quality of staff-inmate relationships andthe delivery of transitional services across differenttypes of facilities, namely work release centers andgeneral population institutions. As one might suspect,there are substantial differences in the way work releasecenters and general population institutions function inWV. Because there are fewer staff in work releasecenters, staff members are often assigned multipleresponsibilities that may allow them to develop morepositive one-on-one relationships with individualinmates. As a result, they may have more opportunitiesto assess the individual needs of an offender andmonitor the offender’s progress in his/her reentry plans.Be that as it may, the results of this study provide strongevidence that work release centers are more in-line withevidence-based principles and that they may be offeringmore intensive transitional services to prisoners nearingrelease.

On every measure of CCP and transitional services,the performance of work release centers was equal toor better than that of general population institutions. Inmost instances, the differences between work releasecenters and general population institutions werestatistically significant. Generally speaking, inmates inWR centers tended to view WR staff as working moreto generate referrals and speaking on their behalf tocommunity organizations. Thus, staff members in WRcenters were seen by inmates as doing a better job ofadvocating for inmates nearing release. Inmates alsotended to view WR center staff as having the qualitiesconsistent with the fostering of effective interpersonalrelationships compared to staff in general populationinstitutions. With the exception of staff commitment,significant differences were found between WR andgeneral population staff on all relationship measures.WR center staff were seen by inmates as being lesscontrolling and/or shaming and more consistent andfair in enforcing facility rules. WR center staff memberswere viewed as providing good examples on how tolive and stay out of trouble.

In addition to fostering effective relationships,inmates in WR centers reported that pre-release and

transitional services were being offered to them atgreater levels compared to prisoners in generalpopulation institutions. While inmates in the two typesof institutions were equally likely to report havingcompleted the parole orientation and infectious diseaseeducation courses and reviewed their individual reentryprogram plans (IRPP), there were significantdifferences on most other service-oriented measures.Just over one-half of all inmates indicated that they hadcompleted a parole orientation course (56.9%) whileonly one-quarter of inmates had completed an infectiousdisease education course (26.6%). Likewise, only one-third of all inmates indicated that they had met with theircase manager to update their IRPP. Less than tenpercent of all inmates stated that they had been giventhe contact information for community servicesproviders and fewer than five percent had actuallyscheduled an appointment. None of these results variedsignificantly across institutions.

Notwithstanding the similarities above, WR centerinmates were significantly more likely than theircounterparts in general population institutions to reporthaving received many pre-release and transitionalservices.8 Although a vast majority of all inmatesreported that they had not reviewed their aftercare planWR center inmates were significantly more likely tohave received this service. Roughly twenty percent ofWR inmates had reviewed a copy of their aftercare plancompared to only 11.5% of general population inmates.Similarly, WR center inmates were also more likely toindicate that they had been told how to contact the DMVregarding a driver’s license and that they had beeninstructed on how to apply for a state issued picture IDcard. While only one-quarter of general populationinmates said they had been told how to apply for stateissued picture ID card (25.1%), two-thirds of WR centerinmates had received this service (63.8%). Similarresults were also found for the issuance of socialsecurity cards and obtaining new birth certificates forinmates. These results suggest that WVDOCadministrators should consider expanding the use ofWR centers as “step-down” units for offenders nearing

8 The results of this study are based on responses of inmatesthat were within 90 days of possible release. Given the amountof time between the date of the survey administration andwhen some offenders were ultimately expected to be released,it is more than likely that we did not capture all of thetransitional services provided to inmates before their release.In some instances, prisoners may have been providedadditional services after the data was gathered. Thus, theresults presented in this report should only be interpreted asclose approximations of the level of transitional planningoccurring in the institutions.

WV Offender Reentry Initiative: Report III 4 2

4 3

release. Greater use of WR centers as step-down unitsor the development of lower security institutions maybring WV correctional facilities more in-line with CCPsand, thereby, improve the delivery of reentry services.

This report also sheds light on the barriers thatprisoners in WV correctional facilities believe they willface upon release. The ability to pay off debt, makeenough money to live, and find a job were all significantconcerns for these prisoners. Moreover, many of thefactors that prisoners felt would be difficult to overcomewere similar, regardless of the offender’s status (i.e.,work release or general population). For instance, morethan half of all inmates anticipated a great deal ofdifficulty in making enough money to supportthemselves (53.6%) and paying off debts (50.7%).Likewise, one-third of all inmates believed it would beat least somewhat hard to find a place to live (34.8%)and to find a job (34.3%). As expected, however,inmates in general population institutions expected toencounter more difficulties compared to WR inmatesafter release. General population inmates believed itwould be more difficult for them to make enough moneyto support themselves, find a place to live, find a job,and pay off debts. For instance, over one-third of generalpopulation inmates believed it would be difficult to finda place to live (35.7%), while more than one-half feltthat it would be difficult to pay off debts (51.6%). Onlyabout sixteen percent of work release inmatesresponded that it would be difficult to keep a job ormaintain employment (16.4%).

These results imply that reentry program plannersshould continue to focus their efforts on assistingoffenders in finding stable employment upon release.Current efforts are underway to further strengthen theties between institutional case managers and

community employment organizations (e.g.,WorkForce WV Career Centers). Based on the resultsof this study, these services are likely to be neededand should be disproportionately targeted to generalpopulation inmates that will not step down to a WRcenter prior to release. As noted previously, inmates ingeneral population institutions were significantly morelikely to expect that they would encounter difficulties infinding a job, suggesting a greater need for employmentservices.

Finally, our results indicated that when prisonersreceive transitional services in a manner that isconsistent with the use of CCP, they report being betterprepared for life after release. As inmate perception ofproper service delivery increased, so did the belief thatthey were prepared for release. This lends support forthe notion that adhering to CCPs within the context ofoffender reentry will better prepare inmates for release.This link between CCPs and preparedness for releaseis important because recent research has pointed tothe significance of individual attitudes and expectationsof life after release and future outcomes (Maruna,2001). In a qualitative analysis of the life narratives ofex-prisoners, Maruna (2001) discovered that comparedto persisting offenders, desisting men and women helddramatically more positive expectations about theirfuture and stronger senses of control over their ownlives. He concluded that prisoners who expressed amore positive outlook about their future may be lesslikely to recidivate, while prisoners who expressed aless positive outlook should be more likely to recidivate.

Based on these results, WVDOC administratorsshould work to find ways to enhance offenderexpectations and preparedness for release. Given thatthis study found that staff adherence to CCPs wasstrongly and significantly related to inmate feelings ofpreparedness for release, WVDOC should focus moreattention on the characteristics of staff and the specifictechniques staff members utilize to deliver reentryservices. Staff characteristics and training in core skillsshould be addressed to ensure the maximumtherapeutic impact of the WVORI. Greater attention tostaff issues in the future and how transitional servicesare delivered may better prepare more prisoners forrelease and ultimately reduce the likelihood of futurerecidivism for many of these inmates.


On every measure of CCP and transitionalservices, the performance of work releasecenters was equal to or better than that ofgeneral population institutions.

Reentry program planners should continue tofocus their efforts on assisting offenders infinding stable employment upon release.

WVDOC should focus more attention on thecharacteristics of staff and the specifictechniques staff members utilize to deliverreentry services.



Andrews, D. A. (2000). Principles of effective correctionalprograms. In L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium2000 on Effective Correctional Programming: Contributing toEffective Correctional Programs. Correctional ServiceCanada.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classificationfor effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology.CriminalJustice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, D. A. & Carvell, C. (1998). Core correctionaltreatment — Core correctional supervision and counseling:Theory, research, assessment and practice. Ottawa, ON:Carleton University.

Andrews, D. A. & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structureand effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVICresearch. In R.R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), EffectiveCorrectional Treatment. Toronto, Canada: Butterworth.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau,P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work?A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Antonowicz, D.H., & Ross, R.R. (1994). Essential componentsof successful rehabilitation programs for offenders.International Journal of Offender Therapy and ComparativeCriminology, 38, 97-104.

Bellatty, P. & Grossnickle, D. (2004). Survey of High RiskInmate Behaviors in the Oregon Prison System. Salem, OR:Oregon Department of Corrections.

Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines forselection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29( 4), 355-379.

Burt, M.R., Duke, A.E., & Hargreaves, W.A. (1998). Theprogram environment scale: Assessing client perceptions ofcommunity-based programs for the severely mentally ill.AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 853-879.

Butler, M. H. & M. H. Bird (2000). Narrative and interactionalprocess for preventing harmful struggle in therapy: Anintegrative empirical model. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 26 (2),123-42.

Camp, S. D. (1999). Do inmate survey data reflect prisonconditions? Using surveys to assess prison conditions ofconfinement. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 250-268.

Camp, S.D., Gaes, G.G., Klein-Saffran, J., Daggett, D.M., &Saylor, W.G. (2002). Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 26-51.

Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. New York: Holt,Rinehart, & Winston.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for femaleoffenders. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.

Edgar, I. (1998). Routine victimization in prisons. The HowardJournal, 37(3), 266-279.

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventionwith offenders. In A. Hartland (Ed.), Choosing CorrectionalOptions that Work. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysisof the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34 (4), 575-607.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment:Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M.Braswell, & D. L. Lester (Eds.), Correctional Counseling andRehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Gillespie, W. (2005). Multilevel model of drug abuse insideprison. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 233-246.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situationof mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday.

Haas, S.M., Hamilton, C.A., Hanley. D. (2006). Impact ofcorrectional orientation on support for the offender reentryinitiative. Charleston, WV: Mountain State Criminal JusticeResearch Services.

Haas, S.M., Hamilton, C.A., Hanley. D. (2005).Implementation of the west virginia offender reentry initiative:An examination of staff attitudes and the application of theLSI-R. Charleston, WV: Mountain State Criminal JusticeResearch Services.

Hamlyn, B. & Lewis, D. (2000). Women prisoners: A surveyof their work and training experiences in custody and onrelease. London, UK: Great Britain Home Office.

Harlow, C. (2001). Firearm use by offenders: 1997 survey ofinmates in state and federal correctional facilities.Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harrison, P. M. & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmatesat midyear 2005 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ208801). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Hemmens, C. & Marquart, J.W. (1999). Straight time: Inmates'perceptions of violence and victimization in the prisonenvironment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(3), 1- 21.

Howell, K. (2000). The psycho-social environment (PSE) ofprisons and its relationship to recidivism. Washington, C.:National Institute of Justice.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computersto factor analysis. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 20, 141-151.

Kennedy, S. M. (2000). Treatment responsivity: Reducingrecidivism by enhancing treatment effectiveness. In L. Motiuk& R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effectivecorrectional programming: Contributing to effectivecorrectional programs. Correctional Service Canada.

Lariviere, M. & Robinson, D. (1999). The prevalence anddeterminants of HIV risk behaviors and perceived threat ofinfection in Canadian federal penitentiaries: Results from anational survey of male inmates. Journal of Correctional HealthCare, 6(1), 7-26.

Leschied, A. W. (2000). Implementation of effective correctionalprograms. In L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium2000 on effective correctional programming: Contributing toeffective correctional programs. Correctional Service Canada.

Lester, T. K. & Haas, S. M. (2006, February). Correctionalpopulation forecast: 2005 update. Charleston, WV: CriminalJustice Statistical Analysis Center, Division of Criminal JusticeServices, Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety.

References

4 5

Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate seriousdelinquents? The Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 564, 142-166.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective interventionfor serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R.Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Logan, C. H. (1992). Well kept: Comparing quality ofconfinement in private and public prisons. The Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology, 83(3), 577-613.

Lutze, F. E. (1998). Are Shock Incarceration Programs MoreRehabilitative Than Traditional Prisons? A Survey of Inmates.Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 547- 563.

MacKenzie, D. L. & Goodstein, L. (1986). Stress and thecontrol beliefs of prisoners: A test of three models of controllimited environments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,16, 209-228.

Maitland, A. S. (1996). Victimization in prisons: A study offactors related to the general well-being of youthful offenders.Federal Probation, 60(2), 24-31.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform andrebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

McCorkle, R. C. (1993). Fear of victimization and symptomsof psychopathology among prison inmates. Journal of OffenderRehabilitation, 19(1/2), 27-41.

Miller, W. R. and Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing:Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York,NY: Guilford Press.

Niven, S. & Olagundoye, J. (2002). Jobs and homes -- Asurvey of prisoners nearing release. London, UK: Great BritainHome Office.

O’Donnell, K. E. (1998). Assault in prison: The victim’scontribution. British Journal of Criminology, 38(4), 635-650.

Ogloff, J. R. & Davis, M.R. (2004). Advances in offenderassessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity Approach. Psychology, Crime & Law,10(3), 229-242.

Palmer, T. (1974). The Youth Authority’s Community TreatmentProject. Federal Probation, 38(1), 3-13.

Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety andreintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81 (3), 360-375.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Preston, D. L. (2000) Treatment resistance in corrections.Forum on corrections research, 24 (12): 24-30. CorrectionalService Canada.Porporino, F. J., Fabian, E. A. & Robinson, D. (1991). Focusingon successful reintegration: Cognitive skills training foroffenders. Research Report R-19. Ottawa, ON: CorrectionalService of Canada.

Porporino, F.J. & Zamble, E. (1990). Coping with imprisonment.Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 403-421.

Robinson, D., Muirhead, M., & Lefaive, P. (1997). Inmatesurvey: A profile of violent and non-violent offenders. Forumon Corrections Research, 9(2), 52 - 56.

Taxman, F.S., Young, D., & Byrne, J. (2002). Offender’s viewsof reentry: Implications for processes, programs and services.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice.

Tellier, C. & R. C. Serin (2000). The role of staff in effectiveprogram delivery. In L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.),Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming:Correctional Programs and Interventions. Correctional ServiceCanada.

Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival.New York: MacMillian.

Serin, R. and Kennedy, S. (1997). Treatment readiness andresponsivity: Contributing to effective correctionalprogramming. Research Report R-54.Ottawa, ON: CorrectionalService of Canada.

VanVoorhis, P. (1994). Measuring prison disciplinary problems:A multiple indicators approach to understanding prisonadjustment. Justice Quarterly, 11(4), 679-709.

Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Lester, D. L. (1997).Correctional counseling and rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH:Anderson.

Visher, C. A., La Vigne, N.G., & Castro, J.L. (2003). Returninghome: Preliminary findings from a pilot study of soon-to-bereleased prisoners in Maryland. Justice Research and Policy,5(2), 55- 74.

Warren, J., Hurt, S., Loper, A., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Exploringprison adjustment among female inmates: Issues ofmeasurement and prediction. Criminal Justice and Behavior,31(5), 624-645.

West Virginia Division of Corrections. (2006). CaseManagement Manual. (Revised and Effective May 1, 2006).Charleston, WV: Author.

Wheeler, S. (1969). Socialization in correctional institutions.In D. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory andResearch. Chicago: Random House.

Wilson, J. & Davis, R. C. (2006). Good intentions meet hardrealities: A evaluation of the project greenlight reentry program.Criminology & Public Policy 5(2), 303-338.

Wright. K.N. (1993). Prison environment and behavioraloutcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(1), 93-113.

Wooldredge, J.D. (1999). Inmate experiences andpsychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26,235-250.


About MSCJRS…

Mountain State Criminal Justice Research Services(MSCJRS) is a private research company thatconducts criminal justice and social scienceresearch and offers consultation, training, and grant-writing services to government agencies, nonprofitinstitutions, and private businesses. MSCJRSseeks to improve policy and practice throughresearch and analysis and provide consultationservices to governmental and nongovernmentalentities in the areas of grant-writing and programdevelopment. For more information aboutMSCJRS and the services it provides, pleasecontact [email protected].

Mountain State Criminal Justice Research ServicesCharleston, WV 25311

Email: [email protected]

Prepared by:The primary authors of this report are: Stephen M.Haas, Ph.D. and Cynthia A. Hamilton, M.S.

The views expressed in this report are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe US Department of Justice, the Bureau ofJustice Assistance or the West Virginia Division ofCorrections.

This report was prepared under US Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance grant#2002-RE-CX-OO62.

Recommended citation:Haas, Stephen M. and Cynthia A.Hamilton (2007,May). The Use of Core Correctional Practices inOffender Reentry: The Delivery of Service Deliveryand Prisoner Preparedness for Release.Charleston, WV: Mountain State Criminal JusticeResearch Services.

Acknowledgments:Production of this report was a team effort thatinvolved the MSCJRS researchers, WVDOCadministrators, and very conscientious andcommitted members of the WV Offender ReentrySteering Committee. The authors would like to thankall of the people who committed their time andenergy to the production of this report and, inparticular, all of the correctional staff, WVDOCadministrators, prison wardens, and committeemembers that made the WVORI a reality in thestate.

WVDOC Administration: Jim Rubenstein,Commissioner; Teresa McCourt, Director ofPrograms; Brad Douglas, Director of Research.

WVORI Steering Committee Members: ElliottBirckhead, Dave Bolyard, Melissa Brightwell,Samuel Butcher, Shawn Cook, Wayne Coombs,Stephen Dailey, Norb Federspiel, Chuck Hall, RickMartin, Steve Mason, Jane McCallister, Melissa

McClung, Benita Murphy, MargaRita Pauley, GeorgeRodriguez, Phil Ruggerio, Randall Thomas, DavidWallace, Kimberly Walsh, Fran Warsing, DougWorkman.

We would also like to thank the WVDOC researchstaff, Jared Bauer and Karen Nichols, for helping usto identify the prisoner study population, for gatheringInmate Management Information System (IMIS) data,and reviewing the report. The authors would alsolike to thank Dena Hanley for her comments on theprisoner survey.

Finally, we would like to recognize all of thecorrectional staff that served as a point of contact ateach of the correctional institutions. Thesecorrectional staff assisted the research team indeveloping a data collection plan at each facility andorganizing inmates into groups for the orientationsessions. A special thank you is extended to:Richard Pauley, Jeff Stinnett, Dee Morgan, RobinMiller, Bobby Williams, Melissa Brightwell, Clint Ryan,Debbie Croft, Sharon Yahnke, Sarah Trickett, andPat Mirandy.

the use of core correctional practices in ...december 2005, wv’s correctional population was over...

Documents