Program survival within today's prisons demand that program design control for initial costs, maintenance costs, space requirements, program volume, staff time expenditure, measurability, program quality, flexibility, relevance to inmate issues and provision for standardization across different and geographically diverse prison populations and security levels. In addition, rehabilitation programs are of little direct benefit to prison administrators if they do not serve as tools to assist in the management and control of large, volatile inmate populations. Keeping inmates productively occupied is a prime concern of prison administration. If this last factor can be inexpensively achieved through rehabilitation programming, enlightened administrators will support and maintain such programs realizing that it is in their best interest to do so.

  In order for programs to successfully serve as inmate management tools, they must provide services to great numbers of prisoners and inexpensively occupy large amounts of inmate time. Conventional substance abuse programs occupy few inmates for relatively short periods of time at high cost in terms of staff time; space and money, all of which are in critically short supply in today's institutions.

  Unable to meet the requirements stipulated above, conventional programs have historically proved insignificant as inmate management tools.

  To bring the number of inmates a single program could reach up to a level large enough to have a significant impact on our massive inmate populations, an inexpensive, high volume method of reliably getting large amounts of program information out to prisoners had to be found.

  A search involving years of experimentation with different information delivery formats ensued. The chief requirements for the delivery of information to inmates proved to be, flexibility; the ability to provide many subject matter topics at varying delivery rates in close temporal order, low cost and high volume information dissemination.

  All systems tested proved to be much higher volume delivery systems than conventional groups or lectures. All but one could not meet the stringent, reality based requirements set for the development of a successful, economical program format which could operate successfully, long term within correctional environments. Ruled out as impractical were group therapy processes (low volume, difficult to measure, staff and space intensive); commercial self help books (expensive, stolen, destroyed, difficult to test, easy to cheat on); video tapes (expensive and inflexible); formal repetitive didactic lectures (staff intensive, staff burnout, space intensive, low volume); and lastly, audio tape labs whose stolen tape player motors and converters proved a great boom to the inmate tattoo industry. After years of experimentation, a simple, large scale, inexpensive, flexible, high quality, expandable, information delivery system was found which was able to operate reliably over long periods of time in a variety of prison environments.

  This prototype permitted staff with absolutely no knowledge of program subject matter to securely administer high quality, large-scale rehabilitation programs with little training. All program expertise was built into the information delivery system. Neither was expensive equipment needed. Program materials could be reused many times over, significantly cutting down on program maintenance and operating costs.

  Staff time previously expended spoon-feeding information to inmates having little interest in learning it was reduced to almost zero.

  Standardization was inherent in the program design permitting inmates transferring from one institution to another to quickly pick up at the same place within the program where they had left off at previous institutions. When this information delivery system was first implemented, the number of inmates involved in rehabilitative programs soared to unprecedented levels. Programs covering topics such as Aids Education, Parenting, Co-Dependency and Substance Abuse could now be delivered extremely inexpensively to entire unit populations. An added benefit was that these formats could be created by correctional social service staff within their own institutions at little cost other than staff time expended for development. This characteristic allowed for the creation of a vast number of different kinds of programs by the people most familiar with inmate environments and problems.

  If staff time previously expended on the delivery of repetitive didactic lectures were to simply be diverted into the development of subject matter booklets, little would be lost and program efficiency would be quadrupled with valid testing. This simple, effective, remarkably successful format consisted of the creation of short study booklets generated on a word processor and duplicated to any extent desired on readily available copy machines. Such booklets could be handed out directly to inmates to study at their own rate, for as long as needed at a location of their own choosing. To keep the booklets circulating, prisoners were required to turn back each study booklet prior to being permitted to take a test over it. Extensive utilization of this format proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that prisoners could successfully teach themselves about their multiple problems with the help of simple, grade adjusted study booklets serving as maps. To complete their intended aim however it was quickly discovered that this large-scale study booklet format required valid testing to assure that prisoners were actually learning and
retaining program content. Program validity was at first maintained through conventional paper and pencil group testing of prisoners on a weekly basis. Although laborious and time consuming, while such testing could be validly maintained, accurate testing forced prisoners to spend hundreds of hours per week studying and learning programmed material in order to legitimately pass tests hand scored paper and pencil tests.

  Prior to the eventual failure of paper and pencil testing as a tool for validating large programs, this simple study booklet program system in combination with valid testing proved to be an extremely potent inmate management tool. The system clearly demonstrated its ability to occupy hundreds of inmates in rehabilitation programming for amounts of time approaching one thousand hours per month. To maintain this level of inmate study, the valid testing of study booklets was absolutely essential and the key to the utilization of this program format as an effective inmate management tool. It was only the presence of valid, unbeatable testing which forced inmates to buckle down and immerse themselves in studying about and confronting their many painful problems. Without such cheat-proof testing, prisoners in denial of their problems would not voluntarily expend the effort to study if they were able to find any other method of getting through such programs with less effort. Once prisoners discovered a method to defeat paper and pencil testing, the amount of inmate time spent studying dropped to the absolute minimum they could get away with. In many cases all that was necessary for prisoners to
graduate from a program lax on testing was the few minutes necessary to formulate a cheat sheet.

  Wide spread cheating of this nature rendered programs ineffective as an inmate management tools. In order to assure that inmates are learning anything at all in programs, accurate, valid testing proved to be absolutely essential. By "valid testing" what is being referred to here is a test regimen that actually measures what inmates have learned and cannot be beaten by any of the hundreds of methods prisoners use to cheat on conventional tests.

  All too often when program validity depends on hand scored testing, staff were found to be administering tests but ignoring inmates using cheat sheets, sending signals or speaking to each other in the testing room. Overwhelmed with the labor intensive testing process, many program managers did not bother to check if the person taking the test was really the person who signed in for testing which allowed paid confederates to take tests for other inmates. The task of grading, scoring, recording and destroying hundreds of hard copy tests per week proved to be a boring, repetitive task that quickly burned out program staff. Prisoners never tired of trying to find ways to beat the system and new inmates entering the unit would consistently try to succeed where others had failed. Attempts to cheat were perpetual.

  Without valid objective testing, correctional programs serve neither a rehabilitative nor an inmate management function and could even be deleterious. Rewarding inmates for completing programs they can move through without learning anything only reinforces antisocial behavior and engenders inmate disrespect for the system. Valid testing of substance abuse and other psycho-educational programs is the only way to assure that prisoners entrenched in their strong denial systems, will confront the painful problems that led to their incarceration.

  Legitimate, unbeatable testing of inmate programs requires prisoners to expend significantly more time and effort learning programmed material than is necessitated by lectures or groups that merely expose them to information. The fact that prisoners learn little through mere exposure to program information is an easy one to verify through a single course of valid testing. The ubiquity of inmate cheating on tests brought to light the magnitude of inmate resistance to valid testing of programs and the strength of their denial systems.

  It became very clear that valid program testing would be essential to determine if inmates were learning anything at all in programs operating within correctional environments. An unexpected and overwhelming number of complex problems resulted when the "honest" testing of large-scale correctional programs was implemented, the most startling of which was the vehemence with which such testing was resisted by inmates and the incessant effort put out by prisoners to circumvent study. As long as even a few prisoners managed to successfully cheat their way through programs, others were encouraged to try. After years of only having to expend enough effort to sit through a group or lecture, prisoners finding themselves responsible for learning the massive amounts of material these programs could present came as quite a shock to the first inmate participants. They had experienced few if any previous prison rehabilitation programs which actually demanded of prisoners that they seriously learn about and address their problems and fewer had the capacity to accurately measure the results.

  It was only after inmates repeatedly and consistently discovered that they could not cheat on program tests that they decided that they had better take programming seriously and concentrate on studying and learning rather than wasting their time trying to figure out a new way to beat the system. Holding their noses to the grindstone again produced unexpected
results.

  In large numbers prisoners who initially, vehemently resisted study began to take a renewed interest after seriously studying programmed material long enough to find that they were learning about themselves. They were absorbing significant amounts of information about their problems and what to do about them. Also unexpected were the many prisoners who scored low on their initial tests and requested permission to retake these tests to bring up their scores. Inmates who were finding the information useful, by word of mouth spread the news to others who voluntarily requested admission into the program. It appeared that similar to the breaking of the sound barrier, there was also a psychological inmate resistance barrier that had to be broken through before resistance slackened. In order to maintain a high performance program, the vehicle used to administer these systems had to be structurally sound. Our weak link in the entire process was paper and pencil testing.

  These tests could be stolen with relative ease and the motivation for prisoners to do just that was constantly present. Validly testing prisoners in denial with little motivation to learn about problems they do not believe they have is extremely difficult. As difficult if not more so is attempting to evaluate these inmates with conventional paper and pencil testing. When first switching over from conventional, untested groups to tested programs, inmate resistance to valid testing increased astronomically and became so stiff that accurate measurement of program output by conventional means for any extended period of time proved virtually impossible. Hand scored testing proved marginally effective with relatively small, low volume inmate programs that could be closely monitored. However, when program volumes were brought up to levels at which the take home-study booklet information delivery system could
disseminate information, the program began interfacing with a much larger body of inmates.

  The resultant problems were severe and seemingly insolvable with the system coming unraveled in the area of manually testing these large criminal populations who viciously battled to overcome and defeat program validation (testing).

  Many of these problems were unique to prisoners and prison environments and would not be encountered in conventional community based programs. It was not long before it became clear that inmate motivation to take a path of least resistance and cheat their way through programs was going to be a constant factor that had to be dealt with as a fact of life within prison environments. We would have to come up with some other way of dealing with it, but it had to be dealt with if we were going to have any assurance that prisoners were going to learn anything. It also became clear that programs of the size of which we were experimenting could not be validly tested for any length of time using predictable, staff intensive, paper and pencil testing.

REWARDING PRISONERS FOR COMPLETING PROGRAMS THEY CHEAT ON OR GROUPS AND LECTURES THEY SLEEP THROUGH REINFORCES ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND ENGENDERS INMATE DISRESPECT FOR THE SYSTEM. 

  At the time we were switching over from group formats to tested programs, inmate hostility at having to work harder in programs which required they confront their problems and denial systems markedly increased. The constant negativity toward tested programs fostered a distinct distaste on the part of staff for the job of managing large manually tested programs and significantly contributed to staff burn out. No such problems occurred with non-tested groups and programs.

   The complications associated with testing large numbers of prisoners moving through high volume programs continued to mount. Inmates perceiving that staff could be manipulated into conceding a point here and there on manually tested programs by verbally battering staff, did just that. This behavior was incessant and nerve-wracking to program managers. Inconsistent results with attempts to increase their scores by verbally harassing staff prompted different tactics on the part of prisoners. They began fabricating miniaturized cheat sheets in great numbers. This method of cheating on predictable hard copy program tests was extremely effective. The skillful application of these crib sheets threatened to short-circuit the intent of social service staff that inmates actually learn something from programs. Easy to construct, duplicate and miniaturize the cheat sheet became the most widespread and effective method prisoners found for circumventing manually tested programs. For large numbers of inmates, years of cheating their way through school yielded skillfully miniaturized crib sheets. Confronting potentially volatile inmates caught using such sheets became a constant, unpleasant and nerve wracking ordeal which took a toll on program managers. Program staff could never tell for sure how an inmate caught cheating would react.

   Historically, many problems associated with the honest testing of programs were ignored, apparently for lack of a better solution. If solutions to the many serious problems confronting high volume inmate programs could not be found, large scale clinical and substance abuse programs for this population might never become a reality.

   The problems associated with the testing of large prison rehabilitation programs involving great numbers of inmates had from inception been very problematic. Eventually the prisoners would get possession of easy to steal, hard copy tests necessitating the shut down of entire programs to prevent the reinforcement of cheating. Conventional testing proved to be very unstable. Up to this point, without a doubt, the most successful part of this evolving large-scale program prototype was the simple take home study booklet part of the system. This simple, inexpensive, high volume information dissemination mechanism had clearly proven its ability to provide massive amounts of programmed clinical information to very large numbers of inmates extremely cost effectively.

  These little booklets and the massive amounts of information they collectively contained could quickly, easily and economically be duplicated to include as many or as few students as the program manager desired. In several cases programs were expanded far beyond staff capacity to manually grade and process the hundreds of tests that were generated as inmates tested over scores of different program booklets. Previously enthusiastic program staff found themselves overwhelmed with the cumbersome, time consuming and extremely boring job of hand scoring, recording and destroying hundreds of hard copy tests on an ongoing basis.

   Already overworked correctional staff, found themselves unable to organize, grade, record and destroy the massive numbers of tests needing to be manually processed. The result was that tests in various stages of processing began piling up and getting scattered around offices. These scattered hard copy tests proved easy targets for inmate theft. Stolen tests began circulating as a unique currency around many prison yards. Inmates would trade stolen tests for candy bars, soda, cigarettes etc. This black market economy composed partly of stolen program tests vastly complicated the problem of maintaining program validity. Stolen tests were woven into the black market inmate economic system as a low-grade currency. Having attained this status, inmate motivation to steal and sell tests was strong and constant. Inmate tactics designed to acquire program tests were ingenious and resulted in severe problems with the program validity. The results were consistent across all established programs, throughout varied geographical locations, within six months to a year of the implementation; enough hard copy tests were in the possession of prisoners to render entire programs totally invalid. With each program certificate handed out to a prisoner who had cheated his way through programs, the prison system only further reinforced criminal, anti-social behavior. Despite Herculean efforts to maintain valid testing by conventional means, the sheer volume of tests this booklet-centered program could generate completely overwhelmed staff.

  The effort required to maintain the secure conditions required for valid operation of this large, hand scored programs, burned out staff across all programs and locations. There were many other special projects staff could involve themselves with which were much easier and required much less time and effort than grading thousands of boring tests in an attempt to run an honest program in a very dishonest environment.

   The stark reality we were confronted with was that in order to assure that prisoners were learning anything at all in programs, valid program testing was absolutely essential.

   Despite Herculean efforts and many different attempts, we were not able to carry out valid testing of inmate populations over long periods of time utilizing paper and pencil testing within these institutional environments. If a means of solving these severe problems with program validity and staff burn out could not be found, it might be decades before the large-scale, high volume programming of prison populations was attempted again.

   Without a solution, untested lectures and marginally effective group formats would prevail and inmates would continue and prisoners would continue to mentally check out upon entrance. Critics would continue to assert that rehabilitation of prisoners is impossible and clamor for longer prison sentences and additional prisons. Our tax burden would continue to increase as more money would be thrown at the problem and gobbled up by contractors who would run bigger programs with more groups with greater numbers of prisoners who were daydreaming their way through. Why should conventional program administers risk facing the many problems associated with the valid testing of prison programs when money was already freely flowing into their coiffeurs? Why expose the complex and convoluted nightmare of problems associated with running honest programs or the many problems associated with the testing of prison populations. After all, there was little if any demand on contractors to provide objective measurement of their programs so why rock the boat. After all, most prison administrators were not asking for either accountability or validity.

WITH NO OTHER KNOWN OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VALID OPERATION OF LARGE, MANUALLY TESTED, INMATE PROGRAMS, A TURN IS FORCED TOWARD COMPUTERIZATION.

Back to Chapter 7