Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:49:32 -0700
From: Jerry Marzinsky <marz@azstarnet.com
Subject: Computer Assisted Programs for Prison Rehabilitation

((For the lastest complete version, see:
     http://www.patrickcrusade.org/rehabilation_programs.htm


                            	ABSTRACT

              HIGH VOLUME, MEASURABLE COMPUTER ASSISTED SUBSTANCE
ABUSE/PSYCHO- EDUCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMS FOR LARGE INMATE
POPULATIONS

The orderly management of a prison depends upon the provision of effective
programs for inmate populations. Properly structured and verified,
correctional rehabilitation programs can serve as potent inmate management
tools.  Equipping prisons with high volume, quality programs demonstrates
staff concern for inmates and permits prisoners to find meaning in their
incarceration.  Program which offer hope, provide for individual growth and
give inmates something to work toward, heighten commitment to acceptable
forms of behavior within prisons.  As a result, prison populations actively
involved in effective rehabilitative programs pose fewer security and
administrative problems.

In 1996 over one million one hundred eleven thousand Americans were behind
bars.  One State estimated that 80% of their inmate population had been
incarcerated for substance abuse related offenses. Inmates sentenced for
drug offenses accounted for 44% of the increase in prison population from
1984 - 1991. The budget for adult corrections throughout the U.S. in 1996
was in excess of twenty seven billion five hundred and sixty five million
dollars.  During that time, only about 5% of inmates with substance abuse
problems in prison received any kind of treatment. Untreated inmate
substance abusers are a huge problem to both society and prisons.  Often
being released from prisons with few if any relapse prevention skills,
their re-offense and recidivism rates are unacceptably high.  During
incarceration, substance abusing inmates are one the most violent and
disruptive segments of a prison population.  Drug related gang activity,
assaults and IV drug use account for substantially elevated inmate medical
costs.   Attempts to provide treatment for the huge numbers of inmates with
substance abuse problems through expensive, low volume conventional means
have clearly failed.  The inability of traditional substance abuse
treatment formats to process more than just a few inmates at a time and
their high operational costs render them hopelessly incapable of ever
providing for the needs of more than a million inmates currently in U.S.
prisons requiring services.  Today's prisons need high volume, inexpensive;
staff efficient programs, which make sense to both treatment staff,
correctional administrators and fit into the correctional environment.
Valid measurability of program objectives must be a part of any such
program.  To assure that inmates in deep denial of long-standing problems
learn anything at all, their progress through programs must be objectively
measurable.  Programs which assist inmates to face their problems can be
psychologically painful for participants when denial systems are dismantled
and the guilt and pain associated with their situations comes forth.  Like
any living being, prisoners will avoid such pain if possible.  If a program
is causing such discomfort, they will either avoid the program or avoid
listening to what the program has to teach them.  Without measured learning
objectives, prisoners will circumvent program goals maintaining their
denial systems intact.   The problems associated with the development of a
validly measurable correctional program containing the above traits were
formidable.  Even after 14 years of steady developmental progress toward
such a target program, serious problems still remained.  Despite repeated,
painful attempts at managing large programs by traditional methods, the
problems encountered could not be solved without turning to the assistance
of computers.  After years of experimentation, a motley lab of inexpensive,
surplus computers was set into operation and development of an automated
rehabilitation format for prisoners continued.  A long, painful
developmental process only recently gave birth to a fully functional,
completely new generation of correctional rehabilitation program.  The
final results were spectacular.  Today, within the period of a single WEEK,
computer assisted programs are processing close to 300 inmates through
validly tested programs dealing with alcohol, drugs, parenting,
co-dependency, relapse prevention and AIDS. Inmates cannot cheat or sleep
through these programs.  As a result, inmates are assimilating massive
amounts of information and thousands of hours of inmate time are being
peacefully and productively spent studying for program tests in their
cells.  Inmates are quietly being taught about what went wrong in their
lives and their denial systems are being dismantled at an unprecedented
rate-readying them for more expensive, lower volume group therapies.
Anonymous computer assisted program evaluations by inmates are consistently
positive.  The software package developed specifically for the unique
programming demands of correctional populations automates virtually all
aspects of inmate testing.  Test administration, scoring, data banking and
resetting automatically for the next test is automated.  The amount of
staff time required to maintain program operation is shockingly minimal
compared to other methods.  The software is easy to learn and can be fully
customized or programmed with unique test questions by treatment personnel.
 User customization permits prison treatment specialists to create their
own unique psycho-educational programs over virtually any topic they feel
will work with prisoners. 
State prison systems currently using these systems immediately began
trading written programs of their own creation drastically cutting down on
costs over having to purchase similar commercial products.  Unlike
traditional low volume programs, these systems have the potential to
provide programming to a full 70% of our current inmate populations. From
inception, the main motivation for the development of these systems was not
and still is not commercial profit.  The overriding concern is that prisons
as they currently exist are not adequately addressing the problems of the
massive numbers of people under their charge. All of our lives are directly
effected; we are all inextricably connected.  The vision is to make this
package available at low cost, making it affordable even to prisons
operating on shoestring budgets in the hopes that one day prison facilities
across the U.S. will adopt and develop similar advanced, high volume
computer assisted programming systems.  Such systems would permit them to
create their own clinical and substance abuse programs, validly test them
and trade these programs freely among institutions.  Prison reform
organizations have the potential to serve as effective clearinghouses for
such correctional programs. If the evolution of a society is measured by
how it treats the least among its members, there is still much room for
improvement.  The technology to provide efficient, cost effective treatment
to prisoners has recently arrived.  If we are not the ones to make positive
changes within our prison systems to the benefit of everyone, then who
will?  If not now, when?

PUNISHMENT IS INEFFECTIVE WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSERS, REASONS WHY:
Higher recidivism is associated with harsher prison environments.
Persistently high recidivism rates clearly indicate that without some other
type of intervention, large numbers of inmates cannot successfully address
the problems, which led to their incarceration.  Incarceration costs have
become staggering. An understanding that punishment alone is not the most
cost-effective method of dealing with substance abusing prisoners is
dawning across the country. Prisons would have a hard time punishing
substance-abusing inmates more than they have already punished themselves
through their abuse of alcohol and drugs.  By the time they hit prison they
have lost virtually everything of importance in their lives.  Many have
failed in traditional substance abuse treatment programs.  The need for
prisons to implement some kind of large-scale treatment or programming
regimen is clear, but there is much confusion about what actually works
with prisoners.

-TREATMENT REGIMENS DESIGNED FOR COMMUNITY POPULATIONS ARE IMPORTED INTO
PRISONS FOR USE WITH A VASTLY DIFFERENT POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT: Lack of
research specific to the unique and difficult problems associated with the
treatment of prison populations forced prisons to import and rely on
traditional community treatment models.  Because of the vast differences
between community and treatment populations, these commonly accepted
treatment regimens are not applicable to prison populations.  These
traditional treatment approaches are high cost, low volume, staff
intensive, objectively difficult to measure and very easy for prisoners to
circumvent.  They were never designed to be used with prison populations.
They were developed for use with community populations, which are vastly
different.  Community populations are less chronic, more functional, more
motivated, more trusting; often have jobs, families and lifestyles, which
are dependent on their recovery.  Community populations very often much to
recover for and are much more motivated to recover.  On the other hand, the
typical substance-abusing prisoner has lost virtually anything of worth to
him by the time of his incarceration and has little incentive to recover.
Drug use is often functional within the prison setting as an escape from
often-harsh treatment and living conditions.

-TRADITIONAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT APPROACHES WHEN IMPORTED INTO
CORRECTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS FAIL FOR SOME OF THE VERY SAME REASONS THEY
SUCCEED WITH COMMUNITY POPULATIONS: Conventional treatment approaches are
much too low volume and expensive to have any realistic prospect of ever
providing treatment to the massive number of prisoners needing such
services.   Although they have surface validity, they are ineffective with
prison populations. Components critical to the success of traditional group
therapies (i.e. trust, openness, expression of feelings) are rendered
ineffective with prison populations due to the inmate culture, which is
little understood by community substance abuse program vendors and
contractors.  Personal information revealed in a group often ends up as
common knowledge on the prison yard the next day.  Inmates displaying
feeling or emotion in front of other inmates within a group treatment
situation are considered weak and marked for extortion.  One of the most
difficult problems facing any kind of treatment regimen operating within a
prison setting is the dismantling of chronic inmate denial systems.  If
inmates can successfully continue to deny that they have a serious problem,
then they see nothing, which needs changing, and have little motivation to
make any changes.  Chronic denial systems must be cracked and dismantled.
Confronting massive inmate denial systems with traditional group therapy is
extremely time consuming, very frustrating and extremely expensive.
Many inmates have had previous failures with traditional substance abuse
treatment and lack faith in these treatment modalities.  In addition,
prisoners do not have to participate in treatment and become functional in
order to support themselves, as is the case with many community clients.
Whether inmates attend prison treatment programs or not they still get
three square meals a day and a roof over their heads.  Many find continued
drug use functional in coping with hostile prison environments.  All of
these factors add up to substance abusing inmates having little innate
motivation to change or program.  In combination, inmate non-motivation and
traditional substance abuse programs, which are non-measurable, is a setup
for traditional program ineffectiveness and failure when imported for use
into prison environments.  Traditional group therapy and lectures, the most
heavily utilized treatment approaches within prison settings are extremely
easy for non-motivated inmates in deep denial to get through without
learning anything.  Without validly measuring program outcome, it cannot be
assumed that prisoners have learned anything at all upon completion of
these kinds of programs.  Virtually only attendance counts.  In most cases
there is no testing of outcomes involved, and what little effort there is
made to test is resisted vehemently by inmates who do not feel they have a
substance abuse problem and consequently should not be made to suffer
through a program.  The extreme difficulty encountered when one attempts to
validly measure the outcome of large inmate programs causes most program
managers to back away from attempting valid measurement.  Surface validity
of traditional programs gives the distinct impression that these methods
are working with inmates.  When exposed to the light of objective
measurement however, the massive failure of traditional treatment
approaches when applied to inmate populations becomes very clear.  

-REALISTIC PROGRAMMING FOR PRISONS SHOULD FIT INTO, AND BE DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF CORRECTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS: Most
prisons these days are lacking space with staff members having to quibble
over what little space is available for activities.  In addition, many
prisons are also short staffed.  Even in the face of security shortages,
traditional treatment programs often expect prisons to create artificial
islands within the correctional environment to accommodate them.  These
accommodations are expensive, inconvenient, space intensive and sometimes
security threats.  Realistic prison programs must be designed to fit the
Spartan demands of current correctional environments and have the
capability to not only survive but to operate there long term.  Since it is
unlikely that the way prisons are operated will change drastically any time
soon, it is incumbent upon the program developer to take into account the
reality of how prisons are operated and design systems, which can survive
within these uniquely harsh environments.  Program survival within prisons
today demands that program design control for: initial costs, maintenance
costs, space requirements, inmate volume, staff time expenditure,
measurability, program quality, flexibility, relevance to inmate problems,
and provide for standardization.  In addition, rehabilitation programs are
of little direct use to prison administrators unless they serve as potent
inmate management tools and assist in the control of today's large inmate
populations.  Keeping inmates productively occupied is often a prime
concern of prison administration. If this last factor can be achieved by
rehabilitation programming, enlightened administrators will support and
maintain programs knowing that it is in their best interest to do so.  In
order to serve as inmate management tools, rehabilitation programs must
service many prisoners and occupy large amounts of inmate time.  Many
traditional substance abuse programs occupy very few inmates for relatively
short periods of time at high cost in terms of staff time, money and space.
 Due to these factors, the traditional inmate treatment program is
ineffective as an inmate management tool.  

-THE SEARCH FOR AN INEXPENSIVE, HIGH VOLUME INFORMATION DELIVERY SYSTEM: In
order to increase the scale of inmate rehabilitative programming to a level
large enough to have a realistic positive impact on massive inmate
populations, an inexpensive, high volume method of getting great amounts of
programmed information to inmates had to be found.  Years of
experimentation with different information delivery formats ensued.  All
systems experimented with were higher volume delivery systems than
traditional groups or lectures.  All but one could not meet the stringent
reality based requirements set for the development of a successful program
format designed specifically to operate within correctional environments.
Ruled out as unrealistic were didactic lectures (low volume, difficult to
measure, staff and space intensive), commercial books (expensive, stolen,
destroyed) video tapes (expensive and inflexible), formal repetitive
classes (staff intensive, staff burnout, space intensive, low volume), and
lastly audio tape labs whose stolen tape recorder motors and converters
proved a great boom to the inmate tattoo industry.  After years of
experimentation, a very large scale, inexpensive, flexible, high quality,
expandable, easily modifiable, information delivery system was developed.
This format permitted correctional staff with absolutely no knowledge of
program subject matter to administer high quality, large-scale
rehabilitation programs with relatively little training.  All program
expertise was built into the program delivery system.  No classrooms or
expensive equipment were needed.  Program materials could be reused,
significantly cutting down on program maintenance and operating costs. 
Staff time previously expended spoon-feeding information to inmates, who
often were not interested in hearing it, was reduced to almost zero.
Standardization was inherent in the design of the program and inmates
transferred from one institution to another could pick up with the same
program, at the same exact place where they had left off in their previous
institution.  When first implemented, the number of inmates involved in
rehabilitative programs soared to previously unprecedented levels.  Best
yet, this same information delivery format can be created by correctional
social service staff within their own institution at little cost other than
staff time for development leaving great potential for the creation of a
vast number of different kinds of programs.  Program validity was at first
maintained through conventional paper and pencil group testing.  While such
testing could be validly maintained, inmates were spending hundreds of
hours per week studying programmed material.  Prior to the eventual failure
of paper and pencil testing as a tool for validating large inmate
rehabilitation programs, this information delivery system in combination
with valid testing proved itself a potent inmate management tool.  The
combination productively demonstrated its ability to occupy hundreds of
inmates for amounts of time sometimes approaching one thousand hours per
month.  Valid testing was the key to the programs success as an inmate
management tool.  Testing forced inmates to study programmed material.
Without valid testing, prisoners in denial of their problems would not
voluntarily study and the amount of time occupied by a non-tested program
dropped to the minimal amount inmates could get away with investing.  In
order to assure that inmates learn anything at all in programs, program
testing is absolutely essential.  Testing inmates who have little
motivation to learn programmed material has historically proved extremely
difficult.  With large programs it becomes almost impossible.  Conventional
paper and pencil testing of prisoners has always been troublesome.  Such
traditional forms of testing were marginally functional with relatively low
volume inmate programs.  However, when program volumes were brought up to
the levels to which this information delivery system could perform, severe
and seemingly unsolvable problems were encountered with program validation
(testing) and administration (staff burn out).  Many of these problems were
due specifically to the unique nature of prisoners within prison
environments, their massive denial systems, their practice at cheating and
beating the system and the extremely high volume of tests generated by
program participants.  It was not long before we realized that inmate
motivation to cheat was constant and ever changing and that large-scale
programs could not be validly tested for any length of time using
predictable paper and pencil tests which were easily for prisoners to both
cheat on and steal. 

CONVENTIONAL PAPER AND PENCIL TESTING METHODS CANNOT MAINTAIN HIGH VOLUME
PROGRAM VALIDITY LONG TERM WITH INMATE POPULATIONS.  WITHOUT VALID,
OBJECTIVE TESTING, CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS SERVE NEITHER A REHABILITATION,
NOR AN INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION.  REWARDING INMATES FOR COMPLETING
PROGRAMS THEY CHEAT ON OR GROUPS AND LECTURES THEY SLEEP THROUGH REINFORCES
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND ENGENDERS INMATE DISRESPECT FOR THE  SYSTEM.  Valid
testing of substance abuse and other psychosocial programs assures that
inmates in stark denial will confront problems which led to their
incarceration and which they have avoided for years.  It is an active
process, giving the inmate no option but to immerse himself in the program.
  Legitimate testing of inmate programs requires inmates to spend much more
time and effort learning program material. They cannot passively sit
through a group or lecture daydreaming. It is self evident that without
testing, many prisoners will take the path of least resistance and get
through a program as quickly and easily as possible.  Finding this kind of
inmate behavior to be obvious and wide spread, program testing was
implemented in early program models in the only way available.  Inmates
were given paper and pencil tests in a group testing format. Legitimate
testing assured that inmates would put forth the necessary effort to master
the informational objectives built into the program.  Instead of watching
television or reading westerns at night, inmates needed to spend
substantial portions of time studying such topics as relapse prevention,
parenting and drug and alcohol education.  After years of only being
required to expend enough effort to sit through a lecture, inmate reaction
to having to meet strict, objectively measured learning objectives met with
much resistance, hostility and constant demands for a return to the easier
lecture or group formats.  This hostile behavior was ongoing until tested
programs became an accepted part of institutional operation.  We never
conceived that years later inmates would be signing on to waiting lists to
get into these programs.  However, at the time we were switching over from
groups to tested programs, inmate hostility at having to work harder in
programs was constant and contributed greatly toward wearing down and
burning out programs staff.  This constant negativity fostered a distinct
distaste on the part of staff for the job of managing large manually tested
programs. In addition, perceiving that staff could be convinced to concede
a point here and there on manually tested programs, which could mean the
difference between the inmate passing, or failing a test, inmates
constantly attempted to manipulate programs staff into doing just that.
This kind of behavior was incessant on the part of inmates and very wearing
on program managers.  
Unable to gain sufficient ground in this area as program managers held
their ground, inmates quickly responded to tested programs with a
technology of their own invention, and they were very good at it.  They
began fabricating cheat sheets in great numbers.  Using this mechanism to
cheat on the first, predictable hard copy program tests was extremely
effective.  The miniature cheat sheet was the most successful of many
methods devised by inmates circumvent paper and pencil program testing.
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 of inmates found for
circumventing rehabilitation programs.  For large numbers of them, years of
cheating their way through school yielded skillfully constructed cheat
sheets and finely polished masters in the art of beating tests through the
use of cheat sheets.  In a large number of cases, Inmates spent more time
constructing and disguising these cheat sheets than it would have taken to
legitimately study for and pass the program test they were preparing to
cheat on.  Confronting potentially volatile inmates caught using cheat
sheets became a constant, unpleasant and nerve wracking ordeal for program
managers who could not tell how such inmates would respond upon discovery.

Despite the previously mentioned distasteful aspects of large-scale program
operation, another problem emerged which seriously threatened the further
evolution of large-scale inmate rehabilitation programs.  If a solution
could not be found, large clinical and substance abuse programs for inmates
would never become a reality.   The testing of these large programs had
always been problematic.  The most successful part of the system up to this
time was the large-scale information delivery system, (take home study
booklet format).  This information delivery system could be quickly, easily
and economically expanded to include as many inmates as the program manager
wanted to copy booklets for.  In many cases it was expanded and implemented
far beyond staff capacity to manually process the hundreds of tests that
resulted as inmates tested over the study booklets issued them.  In some
cases, the numbers of tests that had to be manually graded, scored and data
banked numbered into the thousands per month.  Previously enthusiastic
program staff found themselves stuck with the extremely boring and time
consuming job of hand scoring, recording and destroying hundreds of hard
copy inmate tests every month.  Faced with the extremely boring task of
grading such large numbers of tests was overwhelming to already overworked
program staff.  Unable to grade and organize the massive number of tests
awaiting processing, large numbers of tests in various stages of processing
built up into piles scattered around in staff offices. These piles of
predictable, hard copy paper and pencil tests proved easy targets for
inmate theft and distribution.  Stolen tests circulated around prison yards
becoming a unique brand of inmate currency.  Prisoners would trade this of
that stolen test for food, soda, cigarettes etc.  This situation vastly
compounded the problem of maintaining program test validity many times
over.  Program tests were being woven into the inmate economic system as
currency.  Having attained the status of a kind of low-grade inmate
currency, inmate motivation to steal and distribute tests was incessant.
Inmate tactics designed to obtain program tests were as varied and
ingenious at their cheat sheets.  The result was that within six months to
a year of manually tested program implementation, enough tests were in the
possession of inmates to completely invalidate programs and with each
certificate handed out there was the risk that an inmate was being rewarded
for cheating and stealing.  Large-scale programs were yielding large-scale
problems.  Stacks of tests lying around waiting to be graded became prime
targets for inmate theft.  Stolen tests made their way into the inmate
economy and traded for goods, serving as currency.  Despite Herculean
efforts to maintain valid testing and thus program validity, staff become
overwhelmed by the sheer volume of tests needing to be manually corrected
which were generated by these large programs.  The boring task of hand
scoring hundreds of inmate tests, manually recording test information,
shredding graded tests and confronting a never ending series of potentially
violent cheaters overwhelmed and discouraged previously enthusiastic
programs staff.  The operating conditions required to maintain the validity
of these large programs burned out staff across all programs and locations.
 Faced with inmate hostility and manipulation, the prospect of having to
grade hundreds of boring tests, then destroying them in addition to the
task of having to keep track of thousands of test scores, program managers
became very discouraged.  The problems and extra work associated with
testing and maintaining program validity drove staff off in large numbers.
There were many other special projects they could become involved with
which were much easier and required much less time and effort.  The stark
reality remained that in order to assure that inmates in stark denial of
their problems were learning anything at all in programs, valid program
testing was absolutely essential.   If a way to solve program validity and
staff burn out problems could not be found, these problems world force the
shut down of many prison rehabilitation programs.  Who knows how many years
it might be until such an approach would be attempted again.  In the mean
time, there would be a reversion back to untested lectures and groups.
Critics would continue to assert that rehabilitation does not work with
prisoners and clamor for longer sentences and more prisons.  To a large
extent they would be right.  
Traditional methods of rehabilitation do not work.  Post tests of
traditional group and lecture formats clearly demonstrated that inmates
were assimilating only a very small amount of the information being
presented to them.  A method to overcome these problems had to be found.

***THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPUTER ASSISTED PROGRAM FOR INMATE POPULATIONS***

WITH NO OTHER OPTIONS AVAILAILABLE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE OPERATION OF LARGE, MANUALLY TESTED, UBNATE PROGRAMS, A TURN IS FORCED
TOWARD COMPUTERIZATION.  CONSTRUCTION OF A SOFTWARE PACKAGE SPECIFIC TO THE
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IS BEGUN.  STAFF BURN OUT, MAINTENANCE OF PROGRAM
VALIDITY AND INMATE CHEATING ARE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED BY SOFTWARE DESIGN:   

-ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF INMATE CHEATING THROUGH SOFTWARE DESIGN: If
inmates are able to cheat their way through a program and are then awarded
a certificate of completion, prisoners are actually being reinforced for
the very same kinds of criminal behavior which brought them to prison in
the first place.  It cannot be safely assumed that inmates will have
learned anything from a group or program through mere exposure.  To assure
that inmates are learning anything at all, valid program testing is
absolutely critical.  Valid testing when applied to inmate populations
translated into designing a system which could not be defeated by the
ubiquitous inmate cheat sheet.  The reason inmates were able to so easily
defeat traditional paper and pencil tested programs was due to the
predictability of the position of both the test questions and their
answers.  This information could easily be copied onto a hand or scrap of
paper during even a monitored test and later distributed on the prison
yard.  In addition, paper and pencil tests existed in a form that was
relatively easy to steal.  It was essential to counter these problems in
the design of the emerging software program.  To address this problem the
following features were designed into the new software program:  (1) A
double randomization feature was developed which instantaneously selects
test questions totally randomly fro9m a large test question data base for
presentation onto the computer screen.  This feature prevented inmates from
being able to ever predict the order of the test questions that would be
presented to them.  The more test questions placed into the data bank for a
particular test, the more secure and unpredictable the system was.  In
addition, a second randomization feature was added.  The program was
designed to randomly scramble the position of the multiple-choice answers
each time a test question was presented on the computer screen.  Between
the randomization of test question presentation and the scrambling of
associated answers, the computer automatically generated millions of test
question permutations.  Such randomization precludes any possibility of
predictability.  Early tests validated that the double randomization of
test questions rendered the use of cheat sheets totally ineffective.  This
controlled chaos now associated with the presentation of test questions
that the test administered by the computer would not match the same test
being run on a different computer a few feet away.  Prying eyes looking at
a friend's computer screen will not find the same test questions presented
or the answers in the same order even if both inmates are taking the same
test at the same time.  Consequently, copying the answers from a friends
computer, or any kind of system of signals that inmates taking the same
test could arrange between themselves would also be short circuited.  With
each test being uniquely generated, any inmate faced with taking a
computerized test could expect no help from anyone or anything.  His
testing ordeal would be a unique and personal matter reflecting the
inmate's efforts back to him with brutal honesty.  The computer would only
be reflecting back to the inmate his own achievement and would under no
circumstance issue him a passing score if he did not learn the program
information he was responsible for.

   (2) Since the computer generated, administered, scored and data banked
all tests electronically there is nothing for the inmate to steal or copy.
Previously high paper costs associated with ongoing testing of large
numbers of inmates were totally eliminated.  This feature alone would save
the cost expended to implement one of these programs within a year or two.
Computer assistance assured that inmate tests were scored immediately upon
completion and resultant scores were flashed to the computer screen upon
test completion giving inmates immediate feedback. This was a great selling
point for the many inmates who demand immediate gratification.  (3) For
those inmates who prepared inadequately and then took massive amounts of
time attempting to guess their way through a test while others waited to
get into the lab, a timed test feature was created. Each inmate was given
fifteen minutes to take a twenty-question test before the computer shut
down, locked up and sounded an alarm.  The design and successful automation
of these features knocked out 95% of inmate cheating, maintained program
validity, high program volumes, a smooth flow of inmates through the lab
and valid measurability of program objective.  In addition, the programs
utility as both a rehabilitation and inmate management tool for
administration remained intact.  In addition, even lower operating costs
were attained.

-ADDRESSING STAFF BURN OUT THROUGH SOFTWARE DESIGN:  (1) Staff burn out was
prevented through fully automated testing, scoring and data banking of all
test information.  The system proved so efficient that with computer
assistance operating large rehabilitation programs turned from being one of
the most painful, time consuming and boring tasks to one of the easiest.
With the computers doing virtually all the work, all that remained for the
program manager to do was to start and shut down the computers and monitor
the testing lab during operation. 2) Inmates can't cheat on these
computer-assisted programs the need for staff to suffer through tense
situations associated with confronting potentially violent inmate cheaters
was eliminated.  (3) Incessant inmate attempts to manipulate staff into
giving them a score higher than they deserved was terminated.  This saved
much wear and tear on staff nerves.  Inmates know they cannot con or
manipulate a computer and consequently did not try.  (4) Inmate arguments
over the unfairness of test questions was terminated since students are
purposely not given specific feedback as to which questions they miss.  Not
permitting the inmate to know which test questions they had missed
eliminated any number of squabbles as inmates attempted to manipulate staff
for higher scores.  Program managers often permitted inmates to take tests
over again at later times to increase their scores if they were not
satisfied with their original score.  (5) The software interface was
designed to be user friendly in order not to intimidate even the most
non-computer literate of prison personnel   (6) The system is so efficient
that it requires very little staff time to maintain the operation of a
large-scale program.  This feature permits prison staff to operate very
large rehabilitation programs for inmates with minimal interference with
other assigned duties. The program virtually administers itself.  In actual
operation, a computer lab consisting of ten, old personal computers (8088')
costing as little as $150 each proved capable of processing 60 inmates per
hour through a variety of tested rehabilitation programs. A survey of 120
inmate participants revealed that on the average approximately 3 hours of
inmate time were being expended in preparation for a single ten-minute
computer administered test.  A ten-computer lab taking one hours of staff
time to operate demonstrated a potential rate of return of approximately
1/180.  In short, 180 hours of inmate time were expended in study and test
preparation in exchange for the one hour of staff time required starting
up, monitoring and shutting down lab operation.  Inmates taking study
booklets to their cells were virtually rehabilitating themselves at their
own rate, often at night and in the evening when prison staffing is often
at low ebb.  Since treatment staff are not directly confronting or
threatening inmate denial systems with these programs, there is little
resistance on the part of the inmate with regard to assimilating presented
material.  By about the third program section, inmates realize that they
are learning about themselves and their problems without having to
participate in potentially stressful and threatening therapy groups with
other inmates that they do not trust.   As the program progresses, inmate
denial systems are slowly dismantled as prisoners slowly come to the
conclusion that they do have a problem and that there is hope that their
lives can be changed for the better.  Such discoveries foster gratitude and
hope on the part of prisoners and not the resistance and resentment
engendered by direct confrontation found in many traditional prison groups.  

While computer assisted programs proved popular and effective with the
inmates, it was clearly understood that such acceptance alone would not be
sufficient to gain favor with prison administration struggling to find
money to keep their security forces at least half way decently outfitted.
To keep program costs down, this system was specifically designed to
operate on older computers, which are currently being trashed or relegated
to government surplus warehouses in great numbers.  Even the older 8088
computer that governments are throwing away is capable of testing six
inmates an hour over comprehensive rehabilitation programs much faster than
an inmate could possibly take a test.  A lab of ten of these inexpensive
computers is capable of processing sixty inmates an hour through a variety
of different rehabilitation programs.  There are currently labs in
operation within state prison units at this time, which are processing
close to three hundred inmates per WEEK through comprehensive programs such
as Parenting, Alcohol Education, Aids Education, Drug Education and
Co-Dependency.  Of interest to prison administration is the fact that close
to one thousand five hundred hours of waking inmate time have been
productively occupied within the period of a single month by one of these
labs. These machines responsible for administering these programs would
have been destroyed by state surplus had they not been salvaged for this
purpose of program testing. 

 Over the fourteen years it took to develop this system, the handful of
people involved refused to believe that an inexpensive, efficient and
effective system of providing rehabilitation programs to large numbers of
inmates could not be found.  If we can develop the technology to send a man
to the moon, why couldn't we develop the technology to provide
rehabilitative programming to the inmates we currently have incarcerated in
our prisons?  We tested the systems we sent to the moon carefully and got
empirical data as to what was working and what was not.  The same needs to
be done with programs headed for our prisons but the resistance for some
reason is very intense.
  Taking into account every reason that every prison administrators in
several different prison systems threw out as excuses for not providing
rehabilitation programming to inmates, we began synthesizing a computer
assisted program to address each issue separately.    One by one over, year
after year each complaint was carefully addressed and the roadblocks either
removed or greatly minimized.  At this point in time, the traditional
complaints by administration regarding cost, staff time, space and security
infractions have all been more than adequately addressed leaving prison
administration with little excuse for not providing large scale
rehabilitation programs to inmates under their charge.  Government
warehouses and used computer stores are full of older computers that could
very quickly be brought into use as valuable inmate management tools while
at the same time providing rehabilitation programming to their inmate
populations.  Prison administrators do not even have to purchase commercial
social services programs to run on the system.  The software has been
designed to be fully programmable by the user permitting social service
staff to develop their own clinical and substance abuse programs and
program the computer to test over them.  All but two of the
computer-assisted programs mentioned above were developed by different
prison systems by their own staff and programmed into this software package
for testing.  One program was almost totally developed by some of the more
highly motivated and educated inmates.  Realizing that correctional staff
might not have much experience with computers, these systems were developed
to be very easy to program.  This feature permits corrections staff to
develop and implement almost any program that can be imagined and validly
test it.  With such systems set into operation in our prisons, the number
of inmates receiving programmed services by the time they leave prison can
be brought up from the current 5% to an estimated 70%.  The people who have
developed this system over the years are not associated with any commercial
corporation.  The main motivation driving development was not profit, but a
distaste with regard to having to watch prison systems either not provide
programs or put programs into place which were ineffective, expensive and
low volume because nothing else existed.  It is not true that nothing works
with prisoners, but one cannot be shooting in the dark.  Virtually all
behavior is mediated by learning.  As such a prisons ability to both
monitor and measure what inmates are learning in programs is critical to
the operation of any successful correctional program.  If the way inmates
think is not changed by the time they leave prison, how can society expect
any modification in their behavior?  These systems as they are currently
designed put inmates in touch with reality.  They educate them with regard
to the factors that led to their incarceration and can teach them much more
productive ways of living and being.  Although the systems guarantee that
program material is being learned, it is the inmate who must make the
decision whether to put into action in his life what he has learned.  If he
does not, it will be clear to him that he is following an irrational and
dangerous path.  If after being thoroughly educated as to the dangers of
this path, the inmate chooses to continue to pursue a course which is
dangerous to both himself and society, then society has every right to
protect itself.

-ADDRESSING THE NEXT THREAT TO EMERGE, INMATE HACKERS: Having to turn to
computers to solve problems with emerged with large-scale programs yielded
had problems of its own.  It was not long before the threat posed by inmate
hackers began to emerge.  These inmates range widely with regard to their
computer skills and pose a constant threat to any system of computerized
testing within a correctional facility.  The larger the computer tested
program, the greater the chance the system will be exposed to these people.
 In addition, inmate hackers, even if not personally interested in
challenging a computer system, are subject to pressure from other inmates
to attempt to break into a system if there is a benefit to doing so.  It
was imperative that this threat be countered and that the minds of prison
administrators fearful of inmate abuse of computers be set at ease.  Once
the systems were initially set into operation, inmates who fancied
themselves as hackers were encouraged to attempt to break into existing
systems.  This kind of testing in addition to years of front line use of
these systems encouraged the development of a wide variety of security
systems specifically designed into this package to eliminate the threat
posed by inmate hackers.  The problems posed by inmate hackers was so
difficult that it could not be overcome without the assistance of some
brilliant computer people such as Jeff Proesis, contributing editor to P.C.
Magazine and Steve Thornberg working in the corporate world.  With their
assistance, very powerful security subsystems were developed and
incorporated within this testing system designed specifically to foil the
inmate hacker, these subsystems include: (1) Numerous encrypted passwords.
(2) An encryption sub program, which encrypts all program tests for storage
prior to program, shut down.  Tests are only decrypted prior to program
initialization. Test questions are available in a readable form only during
monitored program operation.  This subsystem protects program tests during
the large periods of time in which the computer is in a down state.  (3) A
timed test feature prevents inmate abuse of the system when the system is
operational and unprepared inmates infringe on limited lab by time trying
to guess their way through program tests.  Such behavior was found to be
constant on the part of inmates and severely interfered with the flow of
students through the testing lab.  
(4) A locked testing loop confines inmates to a small controlled part of
the program during testing operations and prevents entry into any other
part of the program. 
(5) Exit to DOS or Windows operating systems is blocked and can only be
entered by the program manager with the appropriate encrypted password.
(6) To further eliminate any threat from the inmate hacker, during testing
the keyboard is controlled by the software system.  The keyboard is
prevented from taking any other input from the keyboard other than from the
five keys directly associated with answering test question choices.  This
system blocks inmates from using the computer for any other purpose than
program testing. The entire system has been fully challenged by a very wide
array of inmate hackers over the years and has come through with flying
colors when the system is operated strictly within its design parameters.
The aforementioned features were developed over time as each successful
inmate break in was countered by the development of additional security
systems.  This process continued until no successful break ins were
encountered for four successive years.  If prison administration will
assure that the system is being operated according to its design
parameters, they do not have to worry about inmate abuse of this computer
system.  Despite these precautions, if administration is still worried
about inmate abuse of these systems, disk drives can simply be disconnected
or removed which blocks all means of putting anything onto the computer or
anything off of the computer.    

-THE FRONT END DRUG INTERDICTION PROGRAM: Computer Assisted Programs proved
to be so high volume and efficient that they quickly burned through the top
30 - 50% of the inmate population having any interest in addressing their
problems through programs.   The remainder of the inmate population, those
in deep denial, the actively using drug abusers and gangsters having no
interest in dealing with their substantial problems needed external
motivation.  It is with these inmates at this level of the population, more
than anywhere else that the stark differences between substance abusing
prisoners and community substance abusing populations becomes very clear.
The bottom 50% of the inmate population, the most chronic substance
abusers, in heaviest denial are the ones least likely to seek treatment and
are the most serious threat to institutional stability.  These prisoners
need to be identified by prison administration, rendered harmless and
intensely programmed. Warden Tom House, now retired after 25 years of
service with the Utah Department of Corrections has developed a brilliant
plan for doing just that. After years of studying chronic substance
abusing, gang related inmates and how they operate within prison
populations, he designed an ingenious program to both reduce the
institutional and security threats posed by these people and get them into
programs.  This system requires no extra monetary expenditure on the part
of prisons and necessitates no additional resources.  It's just a different
way of doing things and can be implemented by virtually any warden.  The
tactics involve treating actively using inmate drug abusers as what they
are, threats to the safe and orderly operation of the institution. Inmates
with a significant history of drug abuse are tested for drug use sometime
after entering the prison unit.  If found positive, these inmates moved
into a group where they are more closely monitored and are denied
visitation privileges.  These privileges are denied since visitation is the
point of entry for most dangerous drugs flowing into institutions.  These
inmates were also denied other privileges until they had completed all the
substance abuse programming available to them on the unit. Traditional
treatment programs were unable to process the large flow of inmates caught
in this net.  Inmates were put on waiting lists traditional groups that
sometimes extended up to six months in length.  In the mean time, inmates
were being denied visitation while waiting for traditional group based
treatment regimens to open up.  Inmates made to wait this long to get their
visits back grew increasingly inpatient and irritable.  When a computer
assisted program lab was put into operation on the same unit where the
Front End Drug Interdiction Program (FEDI) was operational there was no
delay in processing the flow in inmates caught using drugs through
programs.  Despite the great numbers of inmates being referred,
student-tracking features built into the software enabled program staff to
carefully monitor each inmate's progress through several different
programs.  One by one these dangerous inmates were cut off from visitation
and their drug sources.  The result was that gang influence and assaults
slackened on the prison yard. The unit became much more stable.  The extra
business filled the Computer Assisted Program labs, but even under such
heavy loads, the labs did not bog down.  There were no waiting lists of
frustrated and angry inmates awaiting program entry to get their privileges
back.  Without FEDI, Computer Assisted programs alone do little to motivate
the bottom 50% of the inmate population in deep denial to address their
problems.  Without Computer Assisted Programming, FEDI overwhelms the
capacity of traditional treatment modalities to handle the load, increasing
inmate anger and frustration. The marriage of the two programs was the
completion of a whole.  When linked, upwards of 70% of entire inmate
populations can be both motivated and provided prolonged, intense and high
quality programming at minimal cost.  Although inmates at first entered
these comprehensive educational programs kicking and screaming there were
no staff directly in the line of fire that they perceived they could take
their anger out on.  They were met face to face with a computer that cared
less about how they felt about program participation.  The machines were
programmed only to validly test them and provide valid, instantaneous
feedback over how much program information they had assimilated.  Once
inmates were convinced that they could not cheat their way through this
program, they settled down and began to learn the material in earnest.  It
was not long before they discovered that they were reading about their own
lives and how they had gone off track.  
They learned about what alcohol and drugs did to them, their lives and
their families.  They began to realize how much damage they had done to
their wives and children.  Many inmates began to wake up to how they had
fallen into the trap of substance abuse and what they could do to begin
digging themselves back out again.  There was no therapist banging against
their denial systems that they could resist and resent.  There were no
other inmates rubbing things in their face.  There was no risk of saying
something in a group that would end up all over the prison yard the next
day.  Inmates were given the freedom to study programmed booklets where and
when they wanted to, at their own rate.  A computer tested them once a
week.  Inmate response to the program was overwhelmingly positive and the
number of inmates who could be processed through these programs was
extremely high compared to traditional approaches.  Upon program
completion, many inmates with their denial systems down or weakened began
attending AA in earnest or requested therapy.  This program system is based
on the notion that prisoners cannot make positive changes in their lives
unless they are assisted in seeing themselves exactly as they are now.  As
soon as their denial systems are broken through and dismantled, change
occurs naturally.  They don't have to be forced or struggle through groups
or other treatment expensive regimens or dictated to by some authority.
They just change.  It is automatic.  Breaking through massive inmate denial
systems and arriving at these insights is quite a job and virtually
impossible to do on any kind of a meaningful scale with small scale
traditional program approaches.  Inmates must be let to see who they have
become and how they are without illusion, judgement, or resistance of any
kind.  They have to clearly see their place in society and their function
as social beings along with their duties and obligations to their fellow
human beings.  Above all, their responsibilities to themselves as
individuals living with other individuals must be made clear.  Once they
understand clearly where they are, they can then begin to change and learn
more positive ways of living.  Computer Assisted Programs can be used as a
high volume mechanism to show them the way.  It is already happening.

The ability of computer assisted programs to inexpensively process large
numbers of inmates through comprehensive, validly tested programs is one of
its main strengths.  It matters little how good a traditional program is,
if it only has the capacity to process very small numbers of inmates, its
overall effect becomes less than a drop in the bucket compared to what is
needed to positively program our massive prison populations.  Fully
automated, computer assisted programs on the other hand have the capacity
to address the needs of almost entire prison populations, quickly, easily
and inexpensively. For example, a single - ten-computer lab in current
operation on a medium custody institution consistently has achieved the
following: Two hundred and seventy eight inmates are continually being
processed through this lab within the period of a single WEEK.  These 278
inmates by the end of the month had successfully passed well over 600
program tests.  Each test covered a thirty page programmed booklet. Inmates
successfully passing computer generated and scored tests had assimilated
thousands of pages of programmed material from several different programs
such as Alcohol Education, Drug Education, Parenting, Aids and
Co-Dependency?   Administrators will be interested to know that over one
thousand four hundred hours of inmate time were productively occupied by
the different programs tested by this single lab, making the computer
assisted program one of the least expensive and most potent inmate
management tools available to prison administration.  The kicker is that
this same lab consisted of ten old 8088 computers costing approximately
$150 each.  These were purchased from the university surplus bone yard.
This lab and several others like it have now been functioning for several
years and are responsible for literally thousands of inmates receiving
services who under normal circumstances would most likely not received any
kind of treatment or substance abuse education.  

UTILITY AS A SCREENING DEVICE: The ability of this system to process large
segments of the inmate population through tested programs has revealed
several ancillary benefits.  It was found that inmates completing programs
and then being placed into more expensive, lower volume group therapies and
therapeutic community settings were not only more motivated and ready for
therapy but proved less disruptive, better educated about, and more willing
to work on their problems. High volume computer assisted programs proved
effective in dismantling deep denial systems and educational programming
clearly revealed to inmates the damage they had done to themselves and
their families.  Inmates emerged from such programs with a very clear idea
of where they were and what they had become. This gave them a starting
point for change. In fact, many inmates after completion of these programs
request therapy to help them deal with painful issues brought up.  These
systems have also proven useful in revealing inmate educational deficits,
mental health problems, mentally deficient inmates and inmates under
extreme stress.  Program tests are constantly measuring an inmate's ability
to remember, process information, concentrate and learn.

As the year 2000 approaches, used computer stores along with government and
university surplus warehouses are going to fill with older computers that
will not be able to handle the date change over. 
Prisons will be able to either have these machines transferred to them from
other governmental agencies or purchase them very inexpensively and in
significant numbers.  Although these computers will not be able to handle
the complex and memory intensive programs of the 21st century, they will be
perfect for the purposes of providing large scale; computer assisted
rehabilitation programs to our prisoners.

 After flying down to view these systems in action, the Director of Social
Services for one large state prison system reported that there was nothing
on the horizon in corrections that could approach what these systems are
right now accomplishing.  For more detailed information on these programs,
you can e-mail me at marz@azstarnet.com.