Prison Committee Report in Acrobat Reader 4.0

Prison Committee Report Charts in Acrobat Reader 4.0
 

Question for Moscow's LWV:

What have researchers found out about rehabilitation in general?

What are the risks and needs of offenders which impact the effectiveness of any rehabilitation program?

What are the characteristics of effective programming?

What doesn't work?

Idaho's programs

The seven characteristics of effective programs

1. Programs are well designed and implemented around a sound theoretical model

2. The programs have qualified and involved leadership

3. Programs receive appropriate clients and conduct standardized and objective assessments of offenders on risk, need, and responsivity factors

4) Programs target crime-producing behaviors, use effective behavioral treatment models, deliver services and treatment appropriately, and prepare offenders to return to the community

5) The programs are delivered by qualified staff who are well-trained in the programs being offered and who deliver the program as designed

6) The programs are evaluated to ensure quality

7) The programs are supported, both in the community and through the legislatures in their budgets

Recommendations

ADDED NOTE--A little history of rehabilitative programs in Idaho

SUGGESTED READING LIST

    Contrary to the myth that rehabilitative programs do not work, there is convincing evidence that selected rehabilitative programs have a 40% to 60% effect rate on recidivism.  The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) of the Department of Justice has identified those programs through a collection of studies known as the "What Works" literature.   It has also been established that educational programs have an inverse effect on recidivism, that is, the more education an offender has, the less likely he is to recidivate.
     The Moscow League of Women Voters evaluated Idaho's rehabilitative programs using seven characteristics of good programming which have been accepted as standards in the "What Works" literature.  Idaho's programs are designed to deliver a continuum of services from pre-sentencing to release. The rehabilitative programs of the Idaho Department of Corrections are nationally recognized as "leading edge" by the National Institute of Corrections.  The leader of the Bureau of Programs (BOP)  is nationally recognized for his excellence, has developed programs himself which are widely used, and is a trainer for other states' programming staffs. The  IDOC professional staff delivering programs in the institutions and districts are highly trained and motivated.  Assessment tools are being put in place to match appropriate programs to appropriate “clients”.  Program audits are used to ensure that programs are delivered as designed.
     However Idaho cannot fully take advantage of this excellent programming selection, leadership, and staff professionalism because the educational and rehabilitative programs are not adequately funded.  Programs are not available to appropriate clients because not enough permanent professional staff are in place to provide it. Instead there is a heavy reliance on volunteers, interns, and contractors to make up for the lack. Programs are not fully available to willing participants because facilities and space are not provided in the institutions and in the district and satellite offices. Programs are not available to the same percentage of the offender population year to year because funding for programs has not increased proportionally with the increases in offender population. Program-specific recidivisim data is not routinely collected but must be funded program by program though grants, an unreliable source of funds. BOP’s stated mission is “to facilitate partnerships with the community and departmental stakeholders to minimize the risk to the public by encouraging offenders to develop a pro-social lifestyle”. Current measures of that pro-social lifestyle do not quantify the success of the programs as well as recidivism data would and thus do not speak convincingly to the public.
     Budgets for the IDOC have increased almost threefold in the last 10 years from about $36 million to $107 million. If appropriate programs were available to all offenders who could benefit from them, it is expected that the number of recidivists would rapidly decline. In 1998, about half of the occupants of Idaho prisons were recidivists. To reduce that number even by 30% would be a tremendous cost savings, one which would easily pay for the programs offered.
     It is the conclusion of the authors of this report that money would be better spent on funding rehabilitative, educational, substance abuse, and transitional programs and evaluating those programs for their effect on recidivism than increasing the funding for more prison space and operating costs.
 
 

     The question that Moscow League of Women Voters chose to study as a part of the state-wide study on Crime and Punishment in Idaho was:

     In 1974, a researcher named Robert Martinson, wrote an article in Public Opinion, entitled "What Works?--Questions and Answers About Prison Reform."  His central conclusion was that "with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have no appreciable effect on recidivism". The popular press soon translated that statement into the now familiar mantra of "nothing works". It was a declaration that fell on receptive ears.
    The public, the legislatures, and even criminal justice professionals adopted Martinson's conclusion as fact. The course of action seemed obvious--lock felons up and don't worry about rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and education programs in prisons lost their support. For instance, at the time Martinson wrote his article, there were 356 higher education programs in US prisons. Today there are eight.
     Ironically, Martinson's conclusions were wrong. According to subsequent research, (including his own five years after his article was written) some rehabilitative programs did work; in fact then as today about half of the studies of specific rehabilitative programs show they have an effect in reducing recidivism. Cullen and Gendreau, two highly respected scholars in this area of research concluded in 1989 that "the doctrine of nothing works is best seen as a socially constructed reality {rather than} an established scientific truth."
     Since that time scholars, corrections professionals, and government agencies like the National Institute of Corrections have been working to counter the "nothing works" doctrine by defining, designing, delivering and providing training for programs that verifiably work. As a result, a very sound body of research known as the "What Works" literature has been put together which supports general and specific findings about rehabilitation, defines and identifies the risks and needs of offenders which impact the effectiveness of any rehabilitation program, and identifies characteristics of effective programs. It also has identified programs that don't work.

What have researchers found out about rehabilitation in general?

1) Treatment works better than punishment to reduce recidivism
2) Punishment without treatment can in fact lead to higher rates of recidivism.
3) Appropriate treatments which are behavioral in nature have a 30% better effect than  inappropriate ones. Appropriate treatments are those which suit the need and risk-level of  the offender.
4) The best programs can have an effect size of 40% to 60%.
5) What works for adults, works for juveniles.
6) Treatment is more effective when delivered in community based programs for the low-risk non-violent offender while prison treatment followed by aftercare in the community is more appropriate for the high-risk offender.

1) anti-social attitudes, values, and beliefs. It might be called “criminal thinking.”
2) pro-criminal associates
3) particular temperament and behavioral characteristics (i.e. ego-centrism)
4) weak problem solving skills
5) criminal history (a static factor which is a predictor but cannot be targeted for change)
6) negative family factors (i.e., abuse, unstructured or undisciplined environment, criminality in the family, substance abuse in the family)
7) low levels of financial and educational skills

What are the characteristics of effective programming?

1) The programs are well designed and implemented around a sound theoretical model.
2) The programs have qualified and involved leadership.
3) The programs receive appropriate clients and conduct standardized and objective
 assessments of offenders on risk, need, and responsivity factors.
4) The programs target crime-producing behaviors, use effective behavioral treatment
models, deliver services and treatment appropriately, and prepare offenders to return to the community.
5) The programs are delivered by qualified staff who are well-trained in the programs being  offered and who deliver the program as designed.
6) The programs are evaluated to ensure quality. Mechanisms are put into place so that an on-going evaluation of the delivery of the program is possible. Recidivism rates are tracked in a consistent manner as a true indicator of the success or failure of a program.
7) The programs are supported, both in the community and through the legislature in its  budgets.

     In the process of discovering "what works", the research community has also discovered general and specific programs that don't work with high risk offenders if they are delivered without behavioral treatment programs.

1) Talking cures or non-directed approaches, Freudian approaches.
2) Targeting non-crime producing needs (self-esteem).
3) Targeting low-risk offenders.
4) Punishing smarter  (Electronic Monitoring and Intensive Supervision)
5) Boot camp
6) Vague, unstructured programs (i.e., a treatment provider thinks up a new approach and  applies it every other week.)
7) Drug prevention through emotionally based programs (i.e. DARE. )
8) School-based leisure time enrichment programs, i.e. after school basketball
9) Scared Straight
10) Wilderness programs
11) Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous
12) Silver bullet--Acupuncture, bibliotherapy, cross dressing, tofu diets

IDAHO’S PROGRAMS

     With these characteristics of good programs in mind, how do Idaho's programs measure up?  It is important first to know how the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) is organized to see by whom and how the rehabilitative programs are delivered, and to see to whom the rehabilitative programs are delivered.
     The department is governed by a three-person board, each member serving a term of six years. The board oversees the director who in turn manages four divisions: Management Services, Prisons, Institutional Services, and Field and Community Services. The Institutional Services Division through the Bureau of Offender Programs coordinates rehabilitative programs that the Prison Division and the Field and Community Division deliver to offenders. The Prison Division delivers programming to the approximately 4680 offenders inside of correctional institutions. Field and Community Services Division delivers programs to the approximately 7400 offenders outside of prison through the district offices and all five work centers. The Institutional Services Division through the Bureau of Education delivers high school and vocational education classes to offenders in prison. The IDOC attempts to provide a continuum of services to offenders from the time of arrest until the completion of sentence.
     The Bureau of Education provides educational services to offenders incarcerated in state adult correctional facilities through the Robert Janss School which is a special purpose school accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. The school delivers basic remediation courses for students whose literacy falls below 8.9 grade level, courses in GED preparation, English as a second language courses, and independent life-long learning courses. The school's participants earn 13% of the GEDs and HSEs awarded in Idaho each year. If it were one school, it would be the largest high school in the state. Because the Robert Janss school is accredited, the quality of the courses can be measured and monitored by their outcome through standardized tests (Test of Adult Basic Education) accepted throughout the country.
     The vocational educational programs offered by the Department of Corrections are also administered by the Bureau of Education. These vocational programs are currently in the construction field and in business and office occupations. Vocational programming through distance education (compressed video) is being developed for mid-management, custodial science, computer applications, and food service with five certified completion levels possible. That program is slated to begin in June 2000.
     In 1999, 1730 inmate students participated in the Adult Basic Education Program. More than 70% of the IDOC offenders released from institutional custody in FY99 had completed their secondary education. This does not mean that they all earned their certificates in prison education classes because some had earned their degrees before coming into the institution, but a good many of them did.
     Support for the Education Bureau's programs has not kept up proportionally with the increase in prisoner population nor with the special demographics of the prison population. "Inadequate instructional staffing and placement prevents more than 60% of Idaho's incarcerated offenders from accessing basic literacy instruction, English as a Second Language classes, life skills courses, and the opportunity to complete the requirements for a high school diploma or equivalency” according to the Institutional Services Division FY99 Annual Report. In 1999, of the 4200 people incarcerated, 822 were under the age of 25 and within five years of parole eligibility or full-term release which made them eligible to participate in a federally funded vocational program.  In 1999, there were 157 young offenders who required access to special education services under the provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. National studies have shown that "there is an inverse relationship between recidivism rates and education. The more education received, the less likely an individual is to be re-arrested or re-imprisoned".  But in Idaho, budgetary support for educational programs in prisons has come grudgingly and sometimes as a result of lawsuits. Such was the case with the educational program at Pocatello Women's Correctional Center which did not have parity with men's institutions.
     The Bureau of Offender Programs, (BOP) is responsible for assisting in and providing information necessary to select the rehabilitative programs. Final selection of "Core" programs is done by the Standards Committee. IDOC staff and contracted service providers trained by BOP deliver the programs to inmates in the Prisons and Field and Community Service Divisions.

The seven characteristics of effective programs previously mentioned will be used as the standard to look at Idaho's rehabilitation programs in order to answer the question of the study.

1. Programs are well designed and implemented around a sound theoretical model. The intent of the Bureau of Programs in the Idaho Department of Corrections is to provide a continuum of services to offenders as they move through the correctional system from arrest through the completion of sentence. Because the correctional system involves community criminal justice, substance abuse treatment, contracted services, the public health care system, as well as the correctional institutions and community supervision, the BOP attempts to select programs which provide appropriate and effective treatment to offenders at different points in this continuum. The proper sequence, frequency, follow-up, and combination of programs, not just the individual programs themselves, maximizes effectiveness. With this continuum of care in mind, the Bureau of Programs has selected programs  which have been recognized by the National Institute of Corrections as designed on a sound theoretical model. The programs are implemented as the design dictates. Idaho has two categories of programs--the Core programs which the department feels are ones that form the basis of treatment. The Other programs which are taught as supplemental (see attachment).  The programs have been well researched and chosen for their proven effectiveness and evaluability. That is, they have clear goals, useful training manuals and support materials, they use a variety of teaching methods and techniques so that different learning needs are met, they have competencies built in so that progress can be monitored. The Core programs have been shown nationally to have an effect on recidivism rates.
     To oversee BOP’s selection and suitability of Core programs, the IDOC Standards Committee was recently established. This committee is made up of representatives from all correctional institutions, from the district offices and work release centers. It also includes representatives from the BOP, the Division of Prisons, Field and Community Services, and the Bureau of Education. The Standards Committee's job is to review proposed changes to the Core programs list and reject or approve them. They evaluate the effectiveness of these programs in order to ensure continuity throughout the department. Idaho's programs are considered as "leading edge" by the National Institute of Corrections. Idaho was selected as one of two corrections systems to pilot a test of a new cognitive/lifeskills program entitled Thinking for a Change. The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment facility in Boise is considered one of the twelve "model" programs in the country.

Conclusion:  The IDOC has selected programs that are well designed and are implemented around a sound theoretical model.

Recommendation:  Acknowledge the excellence of the selected programs and support the cooperative efforts among national institutions, state educational organizations, and the IDOC to develop, refine, and measure the effect of programs.

Conclusion:  IDOC’s programs have qualified and involved leadership.

Recommendation:  Acknowledge the excellence of the leadership in the Bureau of Programs and support the leadership by giving due consideration to BOP recommendations.

Conclusions:  The IDOC will be conducting standardized and objective assessment of offenders on risk, need, and responsivity factors within the year. Though specific programs may be receiving appropriate clients now, it cannot be said that all clients have access to programs that may be appropriate to them, because those programs simply may not be available in the institution or district to which clients have been assigned.

Recommendations:  Encourage the continued funding of the LSI-R assessment tool in pre and post sentencing applications and in Team Case Management and outcomes assessment. The placement of offenders in institutions or districts according to offender programming needs should be encouraged, and lacking that capability, the IDOC should receive funding to make Core programs available at all institutions and districts so that regardless of offender supervision needs or inmate housing limitations, programs will be available to appropriate clients.

Programs target crime-producing behaviors. Because the theoretical models of the programs used are considered good, it probably can be said that the programs as a whole do target crime-producing behaviors.

Programs use effective behavioral treatment models. Almost all of the Core programs have behavioral treatment components to them. What is meant by behavioral treatment is that the offender is taught to identify his personal thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs and the risky behavior they produce; is taught skills to restructure those thoughts; is taught how to change his actions by changing his thinking. These are very practical courses with homework, role playing so participants can practice their skills, and real world applications. Cognitive Self Change I, II, III, Breaking Barriers, Whole Vision, and Thinking for a Change incorporate most of the components of these behavior treatments and make the other programs like substance abuse education, stress management, anger management, and relapse prevention much more effective.

Programs deliver services and treatment appropriately. BOP's goal is to deliver services and treatment at all points along the continuum from arrest to sentence completion. However, this report has only considered the delivery of services after the sentencing phase. After sentencing either to an institution or to probation, offenders are referred to enroll in specific programs by their treatment teams. That team actually makes the decision on who gets into a given program. The team bases their decision on the assessment results, responsivity issues, how soon the offender is to be released, and what programs are available in the particular institution to which they are assigned. Delivering services and treatment appropriately is not always possible at this point. By “appropriately”, it is understood that not only do programs receive appropriate clients, but that clients are able to have access to appropriate services and treatments.
    One problem in service and treatment delivery is availability. Not all programs are in all institutions and districts now nor will they be in the future. BOP explains that there are several reasons for this:

1) Some core programs are not appropriate in particular settings. For instance, life style  classes may not be appropriate in a maximum security institution because they don't  address underlying criminogenic risk factors.
2) The sequence in which programming is delivered is extremely important to the overall  effectiveness of a program. A cognitive based program would be important to take first  because it would make the life skill programs much more effective.
3) The mission of the particular institution must be considered when determining program  suitability.
4) Availability of funds, personnel, space, and trained volunteers and interns effect availability of programs both in institutions and in the districts.

Programs prepare offenders to return to the community. As part of the philosophy of continuum of care, life skills, family skills, some vocational skills,  relapse prevention courses and pre-release courses are offered to offenders in an attempt to make the transition to community living better. When offenders are released to the community into the parole system, they have many challenges. They usually are financially stressed:  Offenders must pay to be on parole or probation; they must pay if they can for the programs they receive; they also may be paying court imposed fines and victim restitution. They may be under various forms of supervision that make it difficult for employers to hire them. Offenders may be personally stressed:  They may not have emotional support they need because of  family problems or Idaho’s lack of halfway houses. They may be in need of more intense substance abuse treatment than what is immediately available in their home area. Graduates of the Therapeutic Communities need access to treatment centers.  Programs offered in this more real and immediate environment are potentially more effective than if they were only delivered in the correctional institutions, according to the "What Works" literature. Though there have been no comparison studies done between institutional and community programming specifically in Idaho, BOP reports that local experience appears to validate the national studies indicating that programs delivered in the community appear to have a more pronounced affect than when delivered in institutions.
     The continuum of care for an offender in the community setting involves more parties than when the offender is in the institution. Health and Welfare agencies may be involved as well as job services and job training agencies. BOP attempts through its cross training of community and departmental stakeholders to provide that continuum of services--a practice which is supported by criminal justice research.

Conclusions:  The IDOCs programs target crime producing behaviors, and the programs use effective behavioral treatment models. However programs are less available due to lack of resources (from both the IDOC and the offender.) Currently there may be a lapse in continuity between programs in institutions and in the districts due to lack of staff and facilities. The transitional services which assist in moving the offenders from an institutional environment to the community are lacking. In the areas of availability, continuity, and transitional services, the IDOC does not fully meet this characteristic of good programming.

Recommendations:  Support funding for facilities, staff, and programs within prisons, in the districts, and in rural areas to allow offenders to receive appropriate educational and rehabilitative programming in the most effective sequence for continuum of care. Support funding for the inmate tracking system rather than relying on the current grant money to continue its development and use. Support the establishment of halfway houses. Support funding for community treatment centers for graduates of residential substance abuse treatment centers so their progress can be maintained.

Conclusion:  IDOC staff are well-trained in the programs being offered and do deliver the programs as designated. Some Core programming is delivered by volunteers or interns and is therefore unreliable in availability. The programs that are delivered by contractor’s staff may not deliver the programs as designated. To the extent that IDOC has the ability to meet this characteristic, we believe they have done so.

Recommendation:  Support funding to increase the numbers of IDOC staff who directly deal with educational and rehabilitative programs, since program offerings are in part limited by staff availability rather than by inmate demand. Interns and volunteers provide some service, but for continuity of Core programming, a professional staff should be employed. Support the linking of the numbers of offenders to the funding of programs. Support allowing BOP greater supervisory authority over contractors so that interim measures can be taken to counter or penalize poor performance by contractors.

Performance Outcomes--BOP List:

l)  decreases in assault, disciplinary problems, alcohol/drug use, and property damage in the correctional institutions,
2)  number of client contacts leading to reduction in idle time,
3)  staff receptivity and involvement in programming,
4)  increased voluntary program enrollment,
5)  decreased program drop-out rate,
6)  accuracy of client-treatment matching,
7)  program content retention rate (pre/post test averages=18% increase over 9 months),
8)  reductions in recidivism,
9)  cost effectiveness.

Recommendation: Support the funding of studies that correlate recidivism data with program participation and completion. Encourage the participation of educational and national institutions in this endeavor particularly because of the recognition of Idaho's programs as "leading edge". It would be a worthwhile exercise not only for evaluating Idaho's programs, but for evaluating the "What Works" philosophy of the National Institute of Corrections.

1. expanding the programs to match increasing offender populations
2. improving research and outcome studies
3. improving staffing levels and expanding the existing core programs at each facility/district
4. increasing the appropriate core programming to outlying rural areas and satellite offices.
5. expanding statewide, the transitional services (halfway houses and treatment centers for  Therapeutic Community graduates) to focus on treatment needs.

Conclusions: IDOC programs are not adequately supported by the legislature, and it is unclear if community support is adequate.

Recommendation: Recognize the cost-savings benefits of reducing recidivism and adequately fund the rehabilitative, educational, and transitional programs so that all offenders have access to programs appropriate to them.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That funding be authorized to maintain a professional staff to administer, train, deliver, and evaluate rehabilitative, educational, and transitional programs
2. That funding be authorized to provide programs with dedicated facilities and space in correctional institutions, and districts and satellite offices, and to establish treatment centers and halfway houses
3. That funding be authorized to institutionalize essential measurement programs such as  inmate tracking systems and outcomes evaluation rather than relying on grant money to  maintain such systems
4. That funding of programs be directly linked to the number of offenders so that availability  can fluctuate with the prisoner population
5. That mechanisms be put into place so that contractors, including private prison operators,  can be held more immediately accountable for the programs they deliver.

     Although it may be difficult for the general public to embrace the need to increase the IDOCs budget for rehabilitative and educational programming, in the long run it is a far more cost-effective expenditure than providing more prison space and the consequent operating costs.  Aside from the savings to taxpayers, turning lives around from antisocial to socially positive productive behavior is a worthy goal of a civilized society.
     The Prison Committee of the Moscow League of Women Voters concludes that money would be better spent on funding rehabilitative, educational, substance abuse, and transitional  programs and evaluating those programs for their effect on recidivism than increasing the funding for more prison space and operating costs.

ADDED NOTE--A little history of rehabilitative programs in Idaho

     The Bureau of Offender Programs was established in 1996, quite a short time ago. Rehabilitative programs up until that time were mainly focused on substance abuse treatments rather than cognitive behavioral treatments. The consideration of cognitive behavioral treatments were seriously bolstered by the establishment of the Receiving and Diagnostic Unit in 1989. Analysis of the data collected from the assessments made in that unit, identified other program needs.
     In late 1989, the Governor's Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse organized a study with the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Welfare on the need for substance abuse education, treatment, and aftercare programs in the correctional institutions. As a result, the commission designed a cooperative budget between the IDOC and the Department of Health and Welfare to address offenders' substance abuse problems. In the 1990s, district offices, security staff, and IDOC staff attended seminars to heighten awareness and create interest in a cooperative approach to treatment programs. In 1991, the Bureau of Substance Abuse was funded to implement and coordinate treatment services, evaluate programs, apply for grants and build a continuum of treatment services for inmates. In 1993, the first Cognitive Self Change programs were fully implemented at Idaho State Correctional Institution.
     In 1994, the Department of Health and Welfare changed its mission transferring the responsibility of correctional programming funds and monitoring over to the Department of Corrections. This left people on parole and probation out of the substance abuse programs so the IDOC won grants to keep them in a program.
     In 1994, Christopher Murray and Associates, completed a systems capacity analysis on the IDOC. Four recommendations were made:  structure offender assessments around standardized instruments, concentrate existing and new treatment resources on high-risk offenders, standardize treatment throughout the department, and expand cognitive behavioral programs for more inmates. In 1994, the Program Evaluation Task Force reviewed the recommendations of the Murray Report and identified "core" programs which were the most supported in the department. Many of their recommendations were organizational with one of the recommendations being to incorporate all programs except education and recreation into one bureau.
     As a response to this recommendation, in 1996, the Bureau of Offender Programs took the place of the Bureau of Substance Abuse. It was a multi-disciplinary group that included substance abuse, criminality, and sex offender programming with social work, security, research, training and psychology both in prisons and in the parole/probation system.

Alexander, J., Austin J, , "Handbook for Evaluating Objective Prison Classification Systems", Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, June 1992

Anderson, D., "Sensible Justice, Alternatives to Prison", New Press, New York, 1998

Batt, P. E. (Governer), "Committee of One", a report on recommendations for changes in law to reduce prison populatons, 1996.

Buchanan, R. A., Whitlow, K. L., "Guidelines for Developing, Implementing, and Revising an Objective Prison Classification System, Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, June 1987

Bureau of Education, "FY99 ABE Project Narrative", IDOC, Robert Janss School, Sept 1999

Bureau of Offender Programs, "A Brief Reference Guide to Groups", Draft report received 2/12/00.

Bureau of Offender Programs, IDOC, "Idaho Correctional Treatment Services History,  Thirty Years of Growth: 1970 to 2000", 2000

Bureau of Offender Programs, IDOC, Videotape presentation of the workshop, "What Works in Correctional Programming" 2/22/99.

Center on Crime, Communities, & Culture, "Education as Crime Prevention: Providing education to prisoners", Research Brief, No. 2, Sept. 1997

Champion, D. J., "Measuring Offender Risk, A Criminal Justice Sourcebook", Greenword Press, 1994

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, "Women in Jail: Classification Issues", US Government Printing Office, 1997-575-795/65058

Dickey, Walter J., and Smith, Michael E., "Rethinking Probation:  Community Supervision, Community Safety", US Department of Justice, Dec 1998

Gordon, A., "1997 Annual Report on the Sex Offender Treatment Program", Department of Corrections, Twin Rivers Corrections Center, 1997

Gray, D., Borden, C., Richardson, P., "Workplace and Community Transition Training for Youthful Offenders" Annual Report, Sept.1999

Gray, D., Education Bureau Chief, Institutional Services, Department of Corrections, email on March 10, 2000 from Gray to A. Ford

Greenword, P. etal, "Estimated Benefits and Costs of California's New Mandatory-Sentencing Law" originally published by Rand Corp, 1994

Idaho Department of Correction, "DOC Talk", Volume 9 No. 3, Fall 1999

Idaho Department of Corrections Web Site, http://www.corr.state.id.us/. Links to other IDOC sites.

Idaho Legislative Services Office, Budget and Policy Analysis, “Department of Correction 10-Year History of Expenditures/Appropriations”, FY 1991 to FY 2001.

Institutional Services Division Idaho Department of Corrections, "Annual Report" Fiscal year 1999.

James, J. Scott (Chair), "Committee Report on Sentencing Alternatives for Nonviolent Offenders",  Jan 1996

Latessa, E. J., Moon, M. M, "A Practitioners Guide to Evaluative Research", included in US Department of Justice, Promoting Public Safety Using Effective Interventions with Offenders, Sept. 1998.

Lipton, D. S., "Treatment for Drug Abusing Offenders during Correctional Supervision:  A Nationwide Overview", Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 26 (3/4), pp. 1-45, 1998

Maltzo, M.,  Recidivisim    1984

McGarry, P., Carter, M. (Eds), US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, "The Intermediate Sanctions Handbook:  Experiences and Tools for Policymakers", Center for Effective Public Policy, Washington D.C., Oct. 1993

Office of Performance Evaluations, Idaho State Legislature, "Alternatives to Incarceration:  Opportunities and Costs", Report 97-03, Dec 1997

Office of Performance Evaluations, Idaho State Legislature, "Employee Morale and Turnover at the Department of Correction, Report 99-03, Oct 1999

Parent, D. G., “Day Reporting Centers for Criminal Offenders--A Descriptive Analysis of Exiting Programs", US Department of Justice, Sept. 1990

Shichor, D., Sechrest, D. (Eds), "Three Strikes and You're Out:  Vengeance as Public Policy", Safe Publications, 1996

US Department of Justice web site, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov with links to other sites

US Department of Justice, "Promoting Public Safety Using Effective Interventions with Offenders", 9/98

Van Voorhis, P., Brown., K., "Evaluability Assessment:  A Tool for Program Development in Corrections", Monograph prepared for the National Institute of Corrections, no date.

Walters, G. D., "Substance Abuse and the New Road to Recovery", Taylor and Frances, 1996

Williams, J.D., "10 Year History of Corrections in Idaho: A Look at Trends and Priorities", Office of the State Controller, Feb 1998

Williams, V., "Dictionary of American Penology:  An Introductory Guide", Westport Ct: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Zamble, E., Quinsey, V., "The Criminal Recidivism Process", Cambridge University Press, 1998

        District 1      District 2      District 3      District 4     District 5      District 6      District 7

2/25/00 Constructed from Web information.  District Offices are in Coeur d'Alene, Lewiston, Caldwell, Boise, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Pocatello

---

Last Revised 12/17/00