Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2712
Security Threat Groups in Washington State Prisons:
An Exploratory Search for Best Practices

-Washington State Department of Corrections
December 2008
A Study Commisssioned by the Washington State Department of Corrections
Douglas A. Orr, Ph.D. and Tasha Kunzi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARy
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

.,.

iii

~

;

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

,

iii

;

~

INTRODUCTION

'

;.. 1

BACKGROUND

1

DATA METHODOLOGY

2

·LIMITATIONS

,~:

;

PRISON ENVIRONMENT

·

~

·

5

~

8

~

ST.A,KEHOLDER.PERCEPTION
PERCEPTION OF INMATES

:

8

~

Intake
Programnzing

5

~

:

9

,

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

:
:

;

Children &·Families .;

Behavior & Attitudes
PRECEPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS

;

10

:

10

~

Education & Vocational Training

9

11
11

:
:

12

Correctional Officers

13

Investigators

;. 13

Adlninistrators

:.;

15

Legislators

·16
~

Interventionists & Program Managers

;

:

16

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

17

PROGRAM EVALUATION

18

DOMAIN ANALySIS

23

INTERVENTIONAL OBSERVATIONS

23

INSTITUTIONAL OBSERVATIONS

25

RECOMMENDATIONS

27

CONCLUSION

:

31

I'. (If
."1

:.1
fJ n 0n2
'e..; Li J
v

REFERENCES

:

,

32

TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Effect Sizes on Crime Outcomes
Table 2: Benefits and Costs

'

18
:

:

18

FIGURES
Figure 1: All Major Infractions Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2008

,

Figure 2: All Violent Major Infractions Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2008
Figure 3: Fiscal Year Levels of Reported Violence per 1,000 Inmates by Facility

6'
7·
24

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Re-Entry Initiative Implementation from CBCC
. Appendix B: Violence Reduction Plan from CBCC
Appendix C: Step-Down Program fromCBCC

36
55
63

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to a seemingly more visible gang presence, the Washington State Legislature
enacted House Bill 2712 during the 2008 Legislative Session. Hailed by some as long overdue,
the bill as passed by the legislature: 1) established a grant program for law enforcement to battle
gang problems; 2) established a grant program to fund cleanup efforts related to graffiti and
tagging; 3) created a statewide database ofknown gang members; 4) increased penalties for
adults who recruit juveniles to participate in a gang-related crime; 5) expanded the list of
aggravated factors for exceptional sentences to include crimes committed to benefit the gang
collective; 6) provided a civil remedy for property owners to seek costs from _a person who
tagged or painted graffiti on their property; 7) defined a criminal street gang; 8) directed the state
Department ofCommunity, Trade and Economic Development to establish a grant program for
witnesses offelony gang-related crimes to provide them with temporary assistance; and, 9)
commissioned a study ofthe best practices to reduce gang involvement ofinmates in prison.
Our study comes as a direct result ofthis legislation. During the eleven-week contract
period, we conducted a research effort that was three-fold: 1) interviewed stakeholders; 2)
assessed prior programs; and, 3) evaluated peer-reviewed research related to intervention. In
order for us to outline and recommend successful strategies and best practices, it was important
to determine what kinds ofdecisions DOC administrators and their managers would likely make
as a result ofour study. Accordingly, it was our goal then to examine a wide range ofprograms,
strategies, and interventions that play to the various strengths and capacities ofhuman capital
within the inmate population as well as the Department at large.
Findings
• The Department is currently engaged in a best-practices effort to manage Security Threat
Groups (STGs) through facility-administered Step Down programs.
• STG inmates inclined to participate in such programs desire intra-cultural instruction to
learn more about the positive aspects oftheir race and ethnicity.
• Department investigators are extremely understaffed and are in need ofpersonnel
dedicated specifically to STG intelligence and interdiction.
• The Department is already engaged in the provision ofresearch supported treatment
programs.
At their core, quality programs and interventions promote the development ofstrong
cognitive, academic, and vocational skills which, in turn, help to expand employment
opportunities essential to the challenges ofoffender re-entry. Managing and treating the unique
and pronounced behaviors ofSTGs should bring corrections officials to move toward more
progressive yet incremental processes. To do this, we considered eight themes as a basis for
analysis and recommendation. These best practices are summarized as follows: 1) statewide
leadership, policy, and direction; 2) interfacility cooperation and communication; 3) facility
leadership, policy, and direction; 4) intake and assessment procedures: 5) hiring, training,
experience, and professional development; 6) program curricula; 7) partnerships with local
educational and vocational agencies and employers; and, 8) assessment and follow-up. As a

result, we made to the Department several recommendations some ofwhich are highlighted
below.

Recommendations
•

•

Continue to develop and implement strategies that facilitate a flow of inmates to lower
custody levels based upon their participation in specified interventions to include the Step
Down program for STGs; pursue funding efforts in this regard.
Idep.tify, develop or acquire appropriate systems, resources or tools to effectively record,
measure, and analyze STG misconduct through the contracting of an outside source to
. include a volunteer work-study or apprentice-type consortium 0 f graduate students from
nearby institutions ofhigher learning trained in methodologically sound data collection
. techniques; pursue funding efforts in this regard.

•

Continue to develop 'the pilot Special Investigations Unit at Department Headquarters and
direct complex investigations, to include all STG involvements, through investigators
assigned to that unit.
.

•

Augment diversity instruction to inClude intra-cultural awareness.

•

Explore involvement in community tattoo removal interventions that include voluntary
participation from local area doctors or technicians; Establish reimbursement policies for
inmates wishing to have tattoo removal performed at an expense.

•

Hire or assign (through the contracting of an outside source or a volunteer workstudy/apprentice-type consortium of graduate students from nearby institutions ofhigher
learning trained in methodologically sound data collection techniques) to the Offender
Programs Administrator, or a Department designee, a person to identify, develop or
acquire appropriate systems, resources or tools to effectively record, measure, and
analyze STG member progress and outcome.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Washington State Department
of Corrections. We are very,grateful to the dedicated staffwho collected and processed data and
to the participants for their willingness to be interviewed repeatedly for this study. Without their
assistance, the research could not have been conducted. Specifically, we would like to thank
Scott Blonien, Tim Thrasher, and Ruben Rivera for their constant attention to our every need.
Also deserving our gratitude is the Department's Security Threat Group Coordinator Bill Riley
for providing us with an intimate look at the intake process at Washington Corrections Center
(WCC). We would also like to extend our appreciation to the many inmates who spoke to us
despite potential repercussions from their peers. Finally, to Management Analyst Tracy Johnson
and the entire Budget Management Resource Department, our thanks goes out to them for
providing us with data related to inmate behavior.
About the Authors
Douglas A. Orr, Ph.D. is an adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology at Gonzaga
University in Spokane, Washington and Chief Consultant for Pacific Research & Consulting
LLC also based in Spokane. His research interests focus on criminal sexual behavior, homicide,
truth verification and lie detection, and technologically assisted social constructs. He is also
committed to translating research into effective practice and policy by contracting with public
and private agencies to assess and evaluate government funded projects.
Tasha Kunzi is a graduate student in the Criminal Justice Program at Washington State
University in Pullman, Washington. She is the recipient of the 2007-2008 Outstanding Masters
Student Award and currently has under consideration by the Journal ofResearch in Crime and
Delinquency an article called "Sexual Arousal and Self Control: Research Note on an
Experimental Test ofthe Invariance Proposition in the General The01Y ofCrime."

Introduction
Managing prison gangs has been perhaps the most difficult task facing correctional
officials to date. Scholarly research in this area is scant and much of what is published on this
topic is practitioner-based. Although much of it anecdotal, many correctional managers speculate
. that a large measure of institutional misconduct, in one form or another, can be tied to inmate
gangs; or known to most in the profession as Security Threat Groups (STGs). Until recently,
officials managed STGs as they would any other inmate with behavioral issues. The same might
be said for their methods of data collection and intelligence. More specifically, it has been a
noticeable concern for staff at the facility level to manage various individuals operating from
within stratified organizations seeking to exploit institutional weaknesses in an effort to create
significant power structures and achieve status among other inmates. In hopes of discovering the
magic fix, correctional managers abroad make well-intended "overnight wholesale changes" to
institution policy and procedure only to fmd they made matters worse. Arbitrary movements,
displacements, and modifications usually serve to'strengthen inmate power bases and fuel
increased levels of fear and trepidation among inmates and staff.
As the relationship between gang member and organized criminal behavior becomes a
recognized variable in efforts to address institutional misconduct, senior officials now question
conventional approaches to inmate containment and incapacitation. Moreover, these elevated
levels of organized criminal behavior challenge senior officials to abandon historical models of
behavior management and modification and move toward more innovative and workable
solutions to include interventional mechanisms quite absent from the average inmate's stay of
incarceration. With prison population on the rise and facility space at a premium, officials seek
successful evidenced-based strategies that reduce gang membership and recruitment, offer·
potential defectors some form of asylum, and culture smart interventions ultimately reducing
recidivism.
Over the past decade, an increased amount of scholarly resource has been directed toward
prisoner reentry initiatives. Some of it explores social processes that mediate gang membership
during incarceration while another portion seeks to identify the. relational dynamics existing
between STGs and the prison environment. Most scholars agree, however, that prison gang
. activity is directly associated with street-level beliefs and behaviors introduced to the prison
environment; namely - overt masculinity and allegiance to the group. What remains clear is the
seeming relationship between institutional misconduct and gang membership. It so happens that
this is what preoccupies correctional professionals today.

Background
In response to a more visible gang presence, the Washington State Legislature enacted
House Bi112712 during the 2008 Legislative Session. Hailed by some as long overdue, the bill as
passed by the legislature: 1) established a grant program for law enforcement to battle gang
problems; 2) established a grant program to fund cleanup efforts related to graffiti and tagging;
3) created a statewide database of known gang members; 4) increased penalties for adults who
recruit juveniles to participate in a gang-related crime; 5) expanded the list of aggravated factors
for exceptional sentences to include crimes committed to benefit the gang collective; 6) provided
1

a civil remedy for property owners to seek costs from a person who tagged or painted graffiti on
their property; 7) defmed a criminal street gang; 8) directed the state Department ofCommunity,
Trade and Economic Development to establish a grant program for witnesses of felony gangrelated crimes providing them with temporary assistance; and, 9) commissioned a study of the
best practices to reduce gang involvement of inmates in prison.
As defmed by House Bi112712, a criminal street gang is "any ongoing organization,
association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having a common
name or common identifying sign or symbol, having as one of its primary activities the
commission of criminal acts, and whose members or associates individually or collectively
engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal street gang activity." Drafted initially as a
balanced measure of prevention, intervention, and suppression, House Bi112712 designated over
ten million dollars to community and educational awareness programs. Social workers and police
who admitted that they could not solve the problem simply through arrests and convictions were
extremely disappointed to fmd that most of the monies earmarked for prevention and
intervention had been stripped from the bill. What was ultimately enacted, critics argue, is now a
suppression-heavy tool for law enforcement having the potential to unfairly profile and exploit
minorities. Advocates of the law claim enhanced sentences are necessary to deter gang members
from future criminal behavior and that the codified classification system actually protects
potential contacts from misidentification.
Other than those monies allocated to combat graffiti and expand enforcement
efforts, funds for each program dealing' with intervention and treatment were eliminated from the
final draft. All that survived in the way of intervention was the directive to the Washington State
Department of Corrections to study best practices regarding the management of prison gang
populations housed among the various facilities in the state. Specifically, the Department was to
contract with an outside provider to interview various stakeholders such as inmates, Department
personnel, and'program coordinators to research treatment interventions, gang recruitment,
offender reentry, and tattoo removal programs. In August of 2008, the Department awarded this
contract to Pacific Research & Consulting LLC (PRe) based in Spokane, Washington. Because
most research efforts dealing with gang membership and behavior document a robust and
consistent relationship between gang membership and elevated levels of misconduct, we
suggested to the Department leadership that quantifiable treatment interventions show marked
success when combined with concentrated accountability measures such as infractions and other
punitive actions. Subsequent discussions with the Department led PRC to develop a course of
study designed to explore not only interventions aimed at offender reentry but also management
strategies aimed at reducing the potential for institutional misconduct.
Data and Methodology
During the eleven-week contract period, we conducted a research effort that was threefold: 1) interviewed stakeholders; 2) assessed prior programs; and, 3) evaluated peer-reviewed
research related to intervention. In order for us to outline and recommend successful strategies
and best practices, it was important to determine what kinds of decisions DOC administrators
and their managers would likely make as a result of our study. Academics.and'practitioners alike
generally agree that "one size does not fit all (Decker, 2003; Goldstein & Huff, 1993)."

2

Accordingly, it was our goal then to examine a wide range of prqgrams, strategies, and
interventions that play to the various strengths and capacities of human capital within the inmate
population as well as the Department at large.
.To be certain we hit the mark in this regard, we launched an iterative process in which the
gradual acquisition of data informed the project. In turn, this led to more questions that redefined
restorative mechanisms closely related to gangs and membership attraction. As a result, we
recommend strategies and best practices that possess certain key elements. Successful practices
have behind them, for example, a history of intelligence gathering regarding gang recruitment, its
causes and consequences; holistic considerations of interventions that could be applied to block,
disrupt, or weaken those causes and manipulate the risk and protective factors; the conversion of
potential interventions into practical methods, effecting them in ways that are appropriate for the
local context; a collaborative effort with other departments, agencies, and cultures that provides
the offender with a seamless reentry; and, assessment mechanisms in play that facilitate feedback
and adjustment (Daniels, 2008; L. Jackson & American Correctional Association Lanham MD.,
1998).
So that we accurately captured what the Department requested in the way of best
practices, we proposed a practical approach consisting of three core methods: 1) Qualitative
interviews of incarcerated gang members; DOC personnel to include those assigned to securitythreat groups; legislators, gang experts; and ancillary service providers such as Department
program directors; psychologists and/or therapists; 2) Interrogatories of existing programs in
other jurisdictions; and 3) Comprehensive review of the research literature assessing such
programs. Our objective was to produce a written document containing recommendations for
best practices. Various stakeholders in the correctional environment were interviewed to identify
thematic elements of inmate management relating to gang culture and each party was encouraged
to suggest probable solutions aimed at reducing institutional misconduct and increasing safety
within the prison walls. Although this was largely a qualitative effort, our conversations with
stakeholders included survey questions related to their perceptions of gang member behavior,
offender management policy, and intervention ideology.
We interviewed inmate populations at the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP), Monroe
Correctional Complex (MCC), Stafford Creek Corrections Center (SCCC), Washington
Corrections Center (WCC), and Airway Heights Corrections Center (AHCC). A list of male
inmates identified as gang members or associates by the Department was generated for each
facility. Line level supervisors at each facility selected individuals who agreed to be interviewed.
Each inmate was escorted to a private room where the interview was conducted away from
Department personnel. Regarding anonymity, the inmate was assured that no documentation
generated as a result of this study would bear their name or make reference to their identity. '
Furthermore, the inmate was promised that any personal reference they might make regarding
correctional officers, line level supervisors, or other inmates would not be communicated to any
other party in any form whatsoever. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. During the
interview process, only one inmate terminated the interview prematurely.
From the same facilities we interviewed Department personnel across all classifications:
.Corrections Officers, Investigators, Program Coordinators, Classificatio? Counselors, and
3

Administration officials. In the same manner, each employee was infonned that their identity .
would not be disclosed, published, or transmitted in any fonn. Employee availability was based'
upon work schedule and individual consent. We found most employees to be very frank and
honest about their feelings regarding current institutional policies. Only one employee declined
to participate when asked to do so.
In an effort to maximize the potential for contact, we telephoned twenty-six legislators
during a special week-long session in Olympia and left the following message on their answering
machine:
"Hello. This is XXXXXXXXfrom Pacific Research & Consulting LLC in Spokane. The
Department ofCorrections awarded my firm the contract to conduct the Gang
Intervention Study mandated byHB 2712. They've asked that 1 interview various
stakeholders to include legislators. So 1 was hoping to just get a few minutes ofyour time
to talk about this. Would you be able to give me a call back and let me know if this would
be possible? Perhaps 1 could meet you at a local Starbucks or maybe your office. I'd
really appreciate it. My direct line is 509-XXX-XXXX Thank you very much. "

These twenty-six legislators were selected for two reasons: 1) they resided in the metropolitan
areas of Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Yakima, Tri-Cities, Wenatchee, or Spokane; and, 2) some
members served on either the Human Services Committee or the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Health & Human Services. Ten legislators returned our call. Each of them was interviewed
with the exception of one who requested to screen each question before agreeing to an interview..
Upon that basis, we declined to interview the Legislator.
We also infonnally engaged gang investigators at regional gang conferences held in
Toppenish, Washington and Boise, Idaho to acquire literature and develop network
opportunities. Although well-attended by law enforcement, these gatherings drew the
overwhelming interest of social workers and mental health professionals some of whom openly
challenged presenters and speakers to provide a factual basis for some of their conclusions. We
left with a sense that these groups have moved beyond denial to search for realistic interventions
related to gang behavior and prevalence. Conspicuously absent from these gatherings, however,
was a Department presence or significant mention. on the part of the presenter of the gang
.
member's interplay with the correctional environment.
.
We made inquiries of state-run correctional facilities operating within the fifty states.
Program managers from those agencies were asked to participate in a telephonic interview to
discuss their own gang management strategies related to assessment and implementation;
leadership roles; agency boundary issues; advisory boards; prevention,intervention, suppression, .
and reentry policies; organizational resource development and sustainability; and, lessons
learned. In instances where those responsible for such interventions were not available, we left
the following message:
"Hello. This is (research associate) from Pacific Research & Consulting LLC in
Spokane. A person from the Administration put me in touch you with as someone who
could help me. The Washington Department ofCorrections awarded ourfirm the
4

contract to conduct the Gang Intervention Study mandated by House Bill 2712.
Lawmakers have asked that we collect .some information about various gang intervention
strategies. So I was hoping to just get a few minutes ofyour time to talk about this. Would
you be able to return my call? I'd really appreciate it. My direct line is 888-XXX-XXXX
If I don't answer directly, please leave your name and number with a good time to call.
Thank you very much and I look forward to speaking with you. "
For this portion ofthe study, we provided respondents with toll free voice and fax lines. While
some program managers requested a shorter conversation, managers from the states of
Massachusetts Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Texas accommodated us by providing a complete description of activity.
Our review of the literature covered 1) empirical research related to the nature of
intervention; and, 2) a comprehensive review of intervention programs practiced or discarded by
state agencies in the United States. Recentpublic sentiment communicates to legislators a feeling
of intolerance for violent crime and recidivism. The exposure given an incident where the
Department failed to adequately supervise an individual is unsettling to all. The overall goal of .
this study is to provide the Department with a comprehensive assessment of evidenced-based (
intervention programs that have the demonstrated ability to affect inmate behavior before and
after release. Such research [mdings assist thepolicymaker to eliminate failed programs and
adopt programs with successful outcome-based performance measures, supported by continued
evaluation, and increased reductions in levels of recidivism. As a result, policymakers enjoy
renewed trust among citizens and voters (Esquith,2007).
Limitations ofthe Study
This research effort is intended to provide the Department with an assessment of
environmental practices, interventions at the prison level, and recommendations for best
practices based upon those assessments. In most instances, research projects typically have a
duration of six months or more. Although the present study indentified promising interventions,
future studies should be allotted more time and funded to the extent that researchers might
explore program deployment and assessment. While every effort was made to pursue an
objective basis of inquiry, analyses of these groups indicated that some variations were present.
These variations are likely due to the fact that group membership was based on institutional
selection rather than a random sampling. Since the groups could not be randomly assigned due to
practical or ethical considerations, some differences are to be expected, and ideally, can be
controlled for in statistical analyses when there is alarge enough group size. However, the ability
to conclude that differences in perception among the groups were solely due to objective inquiry
is significantly reduced without the use of random selection (Burd, 1981; Decker, Katz, &
Webb).
Prison Environment
To further understand and better manage the STG population, the Department crafted
certain policies to classify and supervise inmates claiming gang membership or association. As a
result, the Department began tracking STGs through the use of a database in 2003. To date, gang

5

intelligence personnel estimate approximately 3,200 STGs now reside within Washington State
institutions, constituting almost 18% of the prison population. Historically, this group of
individuals has accounted for a disproportionate amolint of institutional misconduct, From Fiscal
Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008, STGs accounted for more than 34 percent of all major
infractions issued by correctional officials (Figure 1). More disturbingly, this group becomes
more represented as violence increases. From Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008, STGs
accounted for more than 43 percent of the violent infractions issued by correctional officials
(Figure 2).
Figure 1: All Major Infractions Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008

All Major Infractions FY2004-FY2008
STG Affiliated is

Non-Affiliated is

approximately 18%~appriJXimeteIY82%

of Population

_ _

_

.

_

': _ ;.._
_ _.. _._
- _ _ ..
_ _ ..__ .._ _..
. _
_ _Source: Wasillngton State Department of Corrections (2008)

"6

of Population

_

_ _._........................•.................._ _

_._-_

__ _

_--._,

Figure 2: All Violent Major Infractions Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008

Violent Major Infractions FY2004-FY2008
STG Affiliated is
Non-Affiliated is
approximately 18%-.............
~approximate/~ 82%
. ofPopulation
~
of PopulatIOn

Source: Washington State Department of Corrections (2008)

Initially, gang affiliation fIrst comes to the attention of the Department by way of the
intake process. Since little or nothing is known of the inmate when they arrive at WCC, intake
offIcers rely heavily on the inmate's tattoos or self-acclamations regarding gang membership or
association. OffIcers make further inquiry if they detect either. These remarks are documented on
a form that is forwarded to the Department's Security Threat Group Coordinator. lfthe inmate
makes no remark or bares no tattoo, it is very likely their membership or association will not be
detected until they are transferred or settled in another institution. If, however, remarkable
evidence is noted, the gang intelligence officer meets with the inmate for approximately fIve to
seven minutes to determine the extent, if aily, of association that the inmate might have with a
gang.
While other factors might cause concern for prison administrators, race and ethnicity
have brought signifIcant challenges. During our visit with administrators, they cited the increased
violence among Hispamc gangs to be their most immediate concern. At present, there seems to
be a "fIght on sight" order issued from within the highest Sureno and Norteno regimens causing
a large portion of the institutional violence. This intra-ethnic conflict is further exacerbated by
. the fact that there seems to be limited resources available to offIcials as they attempt to manage,
suppress, and/or displace inmates involved in such divergence.

7

Hispanicgangs are often more highly structured than other gangs and studies have shown
that there are serious consequences for Hispanic gang members who talk to law enforcement
officers (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 2004). Since gang members are primarily identified through
intake-level contacts recorded by corrections officers, it seems reasonable that current validation
practices may tend. to underestimate the sheer number of Hispanic gang members regardless of
their proclivity.
In the past, administrators respOlided to gang-related misconduct by displacing various
inmates involved in such behavior. As expected, this brought about the contamination of other
populations throughout the institution. In July of 2008, however, faced with a much needed
response to the seemingly endless Sureno-Norteno conflict, administrators moved that
population most responsible for the institutional misconduct to the Washington StCj.te Penitentiary
(WSP), housed them in separate units, and controlled their movements so that they were not
likely to intermingle. As will be mentioned later, this initial response to the highly charged
conflict has been well received by other inmates throughout the institution.

Stakeholder Perception
In this section we discuss our interaction with various stakeholders. As various themes
emerged, they provided us with a basis to make further inquiry regarding institutional
disconnects, perceptions of safety and equity, meaningful discussions of culture, and the
perceived dearth of educational and vocational opportunities afforded inmates at the current
time. During our time with each stakeholder, no promises w~re made nor judgments cast. Our
goal, as communicated to each party, was to affirm the commitment of the Department to a safer
and more· progressive environment.

Perceptions ofInmates
Before each interview, we communicated to the inmate that we were aware that the
Department in some way labeled them as an STG or associated· them with such a group. Most of
the inmates acknowledged their role, either past or present, as a member of a STG. We did notice
a significantdistinction, however, in the disposition of the inmate as it related to age. Those
inmates who were older in most instances claimed their association with their particular group
had waned or been severed. Their desire to live that lifestyle, so they said, was no longer an
attraction. The younger inmates claiming an association or significant involvement in agang
tended to be more committed to their STG.
We noticed that African American inmates were more forthcoming than most. While
each inmate harbored a certain degree of skepticism at our inquiry, African Americarl. inmates on
the whole provided us with more information than other groups. Most, if not all, of the Hispanic
inmates demonstrated a deep sense of commitment to their group and were the least likely of the
various ethnicities to acknowledge any prospect for renouncing their affiliation. Caucasian
inmates were as committed to their cause as Hispanic members but less sophisticated in their
conversation. Most explained to us that institutionalized STG members were usually made up of
two types of inmate: a "gang banger" or "gang member." Gang bangers were known to the
Department and other inmates as active participants in the daily routines of the STG. Gang
8

members were those inmates known to the Department and other inmates as a person affiliated
with an STG yet not actively participating in the dail~ routines of the group.
Regarding their instant offense, most inmates acknowledged their involvement to some
degree. Only one declared his absolute innocence..As we discussed their offense, many inmates
described a sitnilar narrative - they were convicted of assaulting or killing another gang member
and received an enhanced or lengthy sentence. One inmate remarked, "In any other situation,
they would have given a cop a medal for what I did." When asked what it was that concerned
them the most during the commission of the crime, inmates remarked that they were worried
only about getting caught and had had no thought for how much time they might be incarcerated.
Intake
All inmates that we interviewed told us that their intake at WCC was rather
straightforward. Each inmate was asked for his papers and questioned by the Department about
his very basic demographic properties. They told us of an instructional lecture they attended that
described prison management philosophies and behavioral expectations. Most of them indicated
that a Department member spoke with them regarding their gang association. Because each
inmate is typically transferred from WCC to another facility within a short time period, their
ability to develop any meaningful relationship or secure any standing within a group at the
Shelton facility is litnited to some extent.
Once they reached their assigned facility of residence, inmates acknowledged that many
ofthem were not immediately known to other gang associates except by their tattoos. Only
perhaps if they were a former resident or notorious gang member, would they be recognized,
accepted, or rejected by an STG collective. Ifrecognized, many told us that they were
.
immediately challenged by a gang affiliate (which was more the case than not) to produce their
papers. Once their identity was established and their conviction confirmed 1, inmates told us that
they were directed by the gang affiliate2 to commit an assault on another inmate (most always a
member of an opposing gang) or "check in" to protective custody. Inmates from three diverse
racial backgrounds told us they felt compelled to comply with the directive simply for fear they
would be assaulted. The prospect of surviving outside of the gang in the general population was
daunting to them. Consequently, most inmates instituted a certain degree of safety on their own
simply by conforming to the desires of the collective, ultimately joining the group.
Programming
Most of the inmates we talked to described an adequate relationship with their
Classification Counseior (Ce). During our time at each facility, we observed this to be true.
Inmates told us that their CCs assisted them in meeting their court-related obligations such as
1 Inmates told us that each STG, regardless ofrace, ethnicity, or association, screened potential members for sexrelated crimes. Anyone convicted of a sexual crime against a child or vulnerable adulJ was denied access or
membership to the STG and ultimately targeted for assault.
2 It was also related to us by inmates that each STG within a facility may be constituted of several faCtions or "cars."
Each car had a leader or "shot caller." This shot caller had the "keys" to the car and more or less made the decisions
for the group. Shot callers, we were told, never directly issued orders for assaults to a newly inducted inmate but
always communicated his orders through a subordinate.

9

contacting counsel, court appearances, and research opportunities. The only remarkable criticism
made by inmates was that their level of contact with the CCwas somewhat limited.
Those inmates who declared their independence from a particular STG remarked that the
Department offered little in the way of clinical counseling or treatment and that what was
available, such as Moral Recognition Therapy or Anger Management classes, was afforded only
to those inmates w.ithin two years of release. Most of what they found to be productive for them .
came by way of faith-based organizations and prison caucuses. Those younger inmates that we
talked to indicated little interest in, such programs.
When asked what it would take to curb the animosity between STGs, many inmates
discussed the possibility of receiving more instruction and discussion in matters of race and
ethnicity. Each inmate admitted that much of the institutional violence occurring today was the
inability of many STGs to fully understand the nature of their hatred for one another. All of them
agreed that race superseded STG membership. Surprisingly, inmates suggested that, while
diversity training was needed, many of them did not understand enough about the positive
'
aspects of their own: culture.
The most discussed and perhaps most ambitious prospect we entertained in this regard
related to the use of mentors. Older inmates believed that they could reach younger gang member
with a persuasive warning regarding the dangers of STG affiliation and involvement. They
argued that younger gang members, for the most part, will respect the word of an older member.
Inmates further opined that they could be of some utility to the Department in this regard. When
asked if they believed the induction process at WCC was the best opportUnity to make their case,
each one agreed and furthermore offeredto become involved as the Department would allow.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
While most of the ~ates we interviewed understood the difference between a truth and
a lie, the moral consequences of using deception; and the distinction between fantasy and reality,
many of them were not able to distinguish the difference between those inmates that were
developmentally disabled and those who could be clinically diagnosed with a psychological
disorder. Many agreed that there exists a large population of mentally challenged inmates but
feelings were mixed when it came to what degree they misbehaved or had any involvement in
STG activities. Most inmates indicated that they knew of or had prior contactwith a substance
.abuse program at their respective facility.
Children and Families
Perhaps the most formidable instrument used to excise the inmate from the STG is the
family, inmates say. Most agreed that they would not have considered leaving the STG were it
not for the .continued involvement and persuasion of family members and friends. Other than
those calls facilitated by CCs, inmates told us that they know of no organized effort on the part
of the Department to utilize the nuances of family attachment to woo the gang member from the.
STG. One inniate remarked that even after he left the STG there seemed to him an absence of
determination on behalf of the Department to strengthen those familial bonds. In recent years,

10

however, the Department has increased assistance related to familial contact. The Department
has become somewhat of an industry leader in family-based initiatives dedicating over $400,000
in funding to such efforts. It may be that this particular inmate, because of their custody status or
other behavioral factors that they do not qualify for such contract.
Education and Vocational Training
As stated earlier, most ofthe inmates that demonstrated a willingness to abandon their
affiliations or continue to do so were older. Inmates told us that as they aged the reality of their
own identity became apparent to them and constrained them to begin thinking about their
contribution to their families and society at large. Uncontested is the fact they feel that furthering
their education will benefit them professionally and cause them to avoid recidivating. It is here
again that inmates tell us they sense an inability or unwillingness on the part of the Department
to provide them with an opportunity to further their education. At present, inmates tells us that
they are afforded an opportunity t6 obtain a GED at Department e~pense. At some facilities,
volunteer groups provide inmates with college courses, they tell us. Tuition for college
correspondence courses not offered through these services, however, comes by way of
significant expense to the inmate. For an inmate earning sixty-seven cents an hour, they argue,
such an opportunity is cost prohibitive. Inmates tell us that they are restricted from Internet
access.
For those exploring the vocational realm, inmates tell us their opportunities are equally as
grim. At one time, inmates at the Monroe Correctional Center (MCC) were afforded the ability
to participate in woodworking, plumbing, and general factotum services. Now, they tell us that·
these jobs no longer exist and have been removed from the repertoire of vocational opportunities
offered by the Department. Furthermore, inmates opined that existing programs are not realistic.
When we asked them to explain, one inmate told us, "Man, Ijustcompleted a two-year computer
Information Technology course offered by DOC. And I took it because that's all they offered
Now you tell me. What white man is going to hire me and trust me with his customer's
information after I tell him I'm a convictedfelon? C'mon. We need cmpentry courses. We need
plumbing courses. We need industry related courses. Something we can use." In contrast, budget
figures indicate that'the Department offers more vocational training now more than ever. 3 Again,
it may be that the inmates we interviewed do not qualify for such programs.
Behaviors and Attitudes
Those younger inmates committed to their respective STGs were not bashful in declaring
their fearlessness of the Department and its response to their behavior. As indicated in Figure
XX, inmates admitted that they would not help a Correctional Officer ifhe or she were being
assaulted by another gang member. Moreover, if it were not for potential reductions in earned
time, they would assist their fellow gang associates in the struggle. When asked to identify the
leading cause of institutional misconduct, most every inmate regardles~ of their behavioral
inclination unanimously offered one reason - time. As one inmate remarked when asked about
assaults on staff, "When we're notfocused on each other.or something else, llle 'refocused on
you." Their perception in this regard may be explained by their current status. In many instances,
3

Over the last five years, the Department spent 14 to 15 million dollars each year on vocational training programs.

11

inmates assigned to higher custody levels simply do not qualify for these p;ograms. Inrecent
years, the Department has actually increased funding for vocational programs to those inmates
who qualify. In fact, we discovered that during Fiscal Year 2009 the Department plans to deliver
vocational programs such as Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Interactive
Media, Upholstery, Life Skills, Partners in Parenting, Modem Drywall, Roofmg and Siding,
Basic Bookkeeping, Building Maintenance, Graphic Design, Carpentry,Baking, Technical
Design, Horticulture, Computer Services, and Welding to more than 15 facilities at a cost of
almost 19 million dollars.
Those inmates less concerned with idleness seemed more concerned with issues related to
respect and equality. Many remarked that even when they were the victim of an altercation, they
were sent to segregation as well. When asked to be more specific, many inmates identified the '
grievance process relative to their protest of infractions. Inmates tell us they believe the COs call
the hearing officer before the scheduled inquiry and "give them the skinny" on what they need
them to do. On the other hand~ Department policy on this matter is quite clear. Hearing officers
are prohibited from contacting the parties involved prior to the inmate's inquiry. It is unknown at
this time why inmates would have the perception that hearing officers engage in such a violation
of Department policy.
This "god-complex," as one inmate described it, directly contributes to the us-versusthem mentality some suggested. Another said, "Respect is the only thing we have left. We have
no job training, We have no college courses. All we have is time and respect. They give us all the
time we can stand without any ofthe respect." Older inmates, however, did mention that they
noticed a difference in staff behavior by facility. For example, one inmate remarked, "Here, they
call me Mr. So-and-So. At Walla Walla, they call me Asshole."
Their observations of Department behavior extended to managerial tactics as well. When
asked to identify some of the positive aspects of Department policy, older inmates told us that
the movement of aggressive STG members, namely Surenos and Nortenos, from their facility to
WSP was a welcome change. Once subjected to routine lockdowns, inmates now enjoy a lighter
atmosphere due to their absence. The movement of STGs to WSP is well received by those
inmates seeking productivity during their incarceration. By design, Department leadership hopes
to facilitate a flow of inmates inclined to change their behavior from higher custody levels to
medium custody levels through the idea that pro-social conduct is rewarded and commended.
Perceptions ofStakeholders
Those employees who serve the offender population total just over 8,000 men and
women. The Department has a current biennial operating budget of $1.5 billion. The Secretary of
Corrections is the executive head of the Department and is appointed by the Governor with the
consent of the' state Senate. As stated on their website, the mission of the Washington State
Department of Corrections, in collaboration with its criminal justice partners, is to "improve
public safety." It is responsible for administering adult corrections programs operated by the
State of Washington. This includes state correctional institutions and programs for offenders
supervised in the community.

12

To effectively supervise the confmement population, the Department has organized their
workforce to perform various functions. These include uniformed correctional officers,
investigators, administrators, classification counselors, and interventionists. During our time at
each facility; we interviewed a sample of employees from each population. Overall, we observed
a well-intended and committed workforce.
Correctional Officers
Our discussions with correctional officers brought to the surface two significant themes:
1) that they assumed an oppositional posture when dealing with STGs; and 2) they were
concerned with their personal safety. When asked if they perceived STGs to be a significant
threat to the Department, most agreed that the situation, as it stands in facilities across the state,
is at a crossroad. Many told us that misconduct on the part of STGs, especially between Surenos
and Nortenos, is at increased levels and that "it might get like California if something isn't
done."
One other significant issue was brought to our attention. While most correctional officers
agreed that lines of communication among shift members and other groups could be better, we
observed a significant deficit of communication at the intra.,.departmentalleveL For example, our
arrival at each facility was announced and coordinated through email prior to our arrival. When
we arrived, more than not, many Department officials were unaware of our arrival or purpose.
After returning from mid-day breaks, the relieving shift was not familiar with our presence or
purpose upon our return to the facility..
Investigators
Each facility is staffed with a small group of investigators totaling no more than three
Department members. While each group has among them someone considered to be a
supervisor, each member carries an equal share of duty. At one time; these groups were staffed
with at least one dedicated STG investigator. But because of recent budget cuts, these positions
have been cut. While each investigator handles their share of STG involvement, they are
concerned with other matters as well. .Some ofthese investigators have risen from the ranks of
correctional officers and others are retired law enforcement.
When we asked investigators to describe their duties, we learned that even though they
are managed by supervisors located at Headquarters in Olympia, most agree that they work at the
behest of each respective superintendent of the facility. One said, "We are the Internal Affairs of
the facility." Investigators tell us that on average seventy-percent of their work involves staff
while the other thirty-percent constitutes their inquiry of criminal matters. Many times the two
are conflated where the incident in question will involve a staff member and inmate conspiring to
conduct criminal behavior. During our visit to one facility, we directly observed their
apprehension of a staff member and inmate involved in criminal behavior.
Each case that investigators discussed with us were tied either directly or indirectly
to STGs. Because the social network of the STG extends beyond the prison yard, most of the
criminal activity is coordinated through the facilities telephone service. Investigators tell us that

13

these telephone calls are recorded4 and linked to each inmate through a unique PIN. The prospect
of monitoring these telephone calls, however, is daunting. At 35,000 calls each month, three
investigators (and in some areas only two) fmd it difficult to monitor any conversation in a
proactive fashion. Most of the time, investigators tell us they fmd themselves reviewing calls as a
response to a criminal complaint.
When asked to describe their response to such matters, investigators seemed to throw up
their hands in resignation to the idea that they keep "having to do more with less." Regardless of
the facility size or location, investigators told us that they are constantly involved in one
investigation or another. Consequently, when the Department calls on them to manage another
matter they must leave what they are doing and tend to it. We observed this to be true. There
were occasions where we would arrive unannounced or watch from a distance to see them
transition from one task midterm and switch to another leaving undone what they started.
Investigators recognized that their li:.wel of communication with each other and with other
ancillary services was less than satisfactory. In some instances, investigators cited personality
conflicts which kept them from knowing exactly what it was each investigator was currently
doing. In other situations, investigators suggested that each facility is a "silo" and therefore
protective of the information it transmits or receives. They acknowledged that they were still
able to telephone an investigator from another facility and ask them for information.
When we asked them to describe their relationships with outside agencies and
prosecutorial entities, most conveyed a positive response. In the more populated areas, they
found, outside agencies were less likely to assist them in a criminal investigation due to limited
resources. In some of the m.ore rural areas, however, local law enforcement seemed to be more
than helpfulm prosecuting a criminal case for the Department. Because Department
investigators are not commissioned to make arrests, many say this leaves them at a disadvantage
in certain areas with claims that STG understand that they are less likely to be apprehended and
prosecuted. Also, investigators related to us that some of their counterparts at other facilities are
able to issue Miranda Rights to inmates during questioning while others are not. This matter,
they say, is currently being discussed with Department legal counsel.
This p~zling legal challenge aside, investigators told us that the tools they use to address
STG behavior are either underused or have been eliminated. When asked to describe this deficit, ,
investigators cite the direct connection between STGs and drug commerce within facility walls
and expressed great regard for the drug dog program. Although they were unable to demonstrate
empirically the deterrent effects brought about by this program, many of the investigators fondly.
described the chorus of toilets flushing in many of the cells when they would walk the dog
though the housing units. Another resource they said that was underused was of course the
.elaborate telephone recording system. Had they more time, investigators tell us that they could
begin to target STG-affiliated individuals responsible for a bulk of the illegal activity occurring
in the facility.

These telephone calls are digitally recorded on a Department server and retrievable up to six months from the call
being placed.

4

14

When we asked investigators to describe their involvement in professional development,
they told us that training opportunities related to gang involvement or behavior are almost nonexistent. Many recalled receiving a two to four hour block of training on gang behavior while
they attended their basic corrections academy. Traveling to a conference or gang class conducted
off-site, they say, in not realistic due to fiscal resources. At best, investigators described
receiving no more than two hours of such training each year.
When each investigator was asked to describe their irinnediate need, they unanimously
told us that they needed ·an additional person in the their unit - Someone dedicated to the
investigation of STGs and their behaviors. Each one explained that there should be someone in
the unit well-versed in the STG culture rather than each of them splitting their duties to manage
that particular population. A few unit supervisors remarked that if they had an office assistant to
prepare documents and reports they would be relieved to perform the work of another full-time
investigator. They added, however, that clerical staff are difficult to acquire in the current fiscal
environment.
Administrators
Our. talks with facility ~uperintendants brought about conversations related to inmate
management and appropriations. When asked about current programming or intervention efforts
directed at STGs, all but one acknowledged that they were merely managing the population'
through movement. It was mentioned by most that recent movements of Surenos and Nortenos to
WSP caused their facility to experience reductions in misconduct and subsequent lockdowns.
Regarding programming or interventions, however, it was told to us by more than one
administrator that they experienced great difficulty in retaining contract personnel to perform
such services. As it was explained to us, the lower wage combined with the prospect of
navigating the security of the facility caused many vendors to become disinterested and drop
their contracts. The Clallam Bay Corrections Center (CBCC) seems to have addressed this
problemby hiring a full-time person with paid benefits..
Not only has CBCC gained strides in intervention preservation but also in program
development. As part of their Re-Entry Initiative Implementation, STGs are offered a graduated
process in violence reduction. Through a "Step-Down" program, an inmate's success is tracked
as they navigate mental health interventions, educational classes, and recreational opportunities.
Participants are removed from the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) and placed into housing
units more conducive to learning and intervention. Although the program is in its infancy, recent
reports we obtained indicate their dropout rate to be below the national average for such
interventions. Though not distinctly STG related, the Department has also initiated pilot Step
Down efforts at WSP and MCC. The Reintegration Program (RIP) at WSP offers violent
offenders or those demonstrating extreme asocial behaviors a way to leave the (IMU) for lower
less-restrictive custody levels provided they modify their conduct. Program managers tells us
that they have seen success with this program despite the inability to move participants away
from IMU. At CBCC, housing units became available for Step Down participants due to a
program that had moved to another location. For WSP, however, no additional space is available
at this time.

15

As it was with each superintendant, fiscal planning caused them to prioritize their efforts
related to inmate management and intervention. In one instance, a superintendant was unable to
replace their office assistant mid-year. Without an office assistant now, they must type and
prepare their own work or ask.office assistants from other departments to accommodate them.
When asked to explain why their drug dog program was eliminated, many of them told us that
this was a budget decision made by Headquarters. With another bleak fiscal year ahead of them,
most superintendants expect further reductions.
Legislators
Our conversation with legislators seemed to be well-defmed. When asked what they
might expect from a request to fund an intervention, each of them told us what generally
amounted to two things: 1) funded interventions should be evidenced-based; and 2) funded
interventions should be "smart." We heard from them a departure from funding "good ideas."
They were more interested to fund programs that had a track record of reducing recidivism.
Moreover, many legislators told us they were ready to fund programs that were "smart" in that
they utilized existing resources or worked in conjunction with other programs statewide.
Interventionists and Program Managers.
The Classification Counselors we spoke with told us that the Department had rece:o.tly
changed their utilization of assessment measures from the Level of Service Inventory ...; Revised
(LSI-R) and Risk Management Inventory (RMI) to the Static Risk Tool (SRT) and the Offender
Needs Assessment (aNA). When asked why the Department chose to switch measures,
counselors were unsure but stated that the Department's selection may have been based upon
research and that these newer assessments represented a more objective and validated measure.
We asked counselors to describe the training they receive to administer these assessments and
they told us that they were provided three days of online training. If, however, they had taken
days off from work or were sick, this traiIting was not offered again. Those counselors who
missed the training were required to learn the material from other counselors.
Regarding inmate interaction, counselors told us that they formally meet with inmates
based upon their sentence length. For inmates sentenced to more than five years, Counselors will
meet with them every twelve months. For inmates sentenced to less than five years, Counselors
will meet with them every six to twelve months. Among their duties, counselors provide the
inmate with access to the legal system, child support hearings, family notifications, and special.
hearings not otherwise mentioned. Specifically regarding STGs, many of them acknowledged
having access to the STG database but felt detached from the issue not knowing too much about
STG structure or behavior. Ofthose counselors who dealt with STGs on a regular basis they
found Surenos and Norteno to be the most withdrawn and guarded. Interviews with those higher
in the program structure told us that many on the intervention and programming side are very
willing to be involved in the STG issue but are either not aware of what the Department is
experiencing in the way of gang related behavior or are undereducated by other Department
entities regarding their efforts to deal with the matter.

16

Empirical Research
Because many community programs that deal with offenders through ''tough love" effort
have shown to actually increase the probability of recidivism, many researchers are fmding that
treatment programs are generally more effective in reducing recidivism than sanctions and
punishment (Ekland-Olson & Kelly, 1993; Great Britain. Directorate ofInmate Programmes.
Regimes Research and Development Section. & Great Britain. HM Prison Service., 1992;
Lattimore, 1995; Polaschek, Wilson, Townsend, & Daly; Rice, 1980; Sam Houston State Univ.
Huntsville TX. Criminal Justice Center. & Texas State Dept. of Criminal Justice Huntsville.
Windham School System., 1994; Valliant, Sloss, & Raven-Brooks; Weisfeld & Feldman, 1982).
There exist differences within program groupings in that those treatments based on welldeveloped theory and research have a greater positive impact than those without theoretical
foundcttion or empiricalresearch. Typically, the comparison of interest is the difference in
recidivism rates between those offenders that completed treatment and those who did not
complete treatment.
Prior research found that while one particular treatment effort within a program design
may have produced marked decreases in recidivism, many cif the other different treatment
options within the program produced wide-ranging results (Gresham, 2005). Called by some as
the "What Works" literature, researchers began to focus on the program's characteristics and
qualities that reducedrecidivism rather than the program labels or names (Scandroglio, LopezMartinez, & San Jose, 2008). Having its foundation in the idea that we should prioritize
supervision and treatment for higher risk offenders, target interventions to criminogenic needs
(the dynamic risk factors that, when addressed or changed, affect the offender's risk of
recidivism), be responsive to the temperament, learning style, motivation, culture, and gend.;er
when assigning programs, progressive correctional treatment policy pursues the offering of four
core services: 1) substance abuse treatment; 2) cognitive-behavioral intervention; 3)
.
employability training; and 4) academic education.
To empirically determine program effectiveness, researchers use meta-analysis, which is
a statistical procedure that allows for the comparison of recidivism results from a mixture of
studies. In this regard we highlight two studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. The first study, Evidence-BasedAdult Corrections Programs: What Works and
What Does Not, was a comprehensive review of evidenced-based programs for adult offenders
rooted in an examination of291 thorough evaluations conducted through the United States
during the last thirty-five years. The second study, Evidenced-Based Public Policy Options to
Reduce Criminal Justice Cost and Crime Rates, sought to itemize the cost and benefit to the
taxpayer respective of each treatment effort. As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, significant changes
in recidivism and cost benefit ratios are experienced through the use of programs rooted in the
aforementioned foUr core services of progressive correctional policy. Marked decreases in
recidivism come by way of cognitive-behavioral treatments. Additionally, for every $1 spent on
vocational and basic education programs, taxpayers save between $1.71 and $3.23 (Aos, Phipps,
Bamoski, Lieb, & Washington State Inst. for Public Policy Olympia., 2001). Furthermore, for
every $1 spent on cognitive-behavioral programs, taxpayers save between $2.54 and $11.48.
Other studies suggest the same results and outcomes.

17

Table 1: Estimated Effect Sizes on Crime Outcomes

Programs

Number of Studies
(Total Number of
Subjects)

Adjusted Effect Size
Used in Cost Benefit
Analysis

General Offenders
.Cognitive-behavioral

25 (6,546)

-.081

Faith-based Programs

5 (630)

.000

Correctional Industries

4 (7178)

-.077

Basic Adult Education

7 (2399)

-.050

Vocational Education

3 (1950)

-.124

Source: Washington Institute for Public Policy (2006)

Table 2: Benefits and Costs

Programs

Percent
Change in
Crime
Outcomes

Benefits to
Crime
Victims'

Benefits to
Taxpayers

Costs

Benefits
minus Costs

General Offenders
Cognitive-behavioral

-6.3%

$5,658

$4,746

$105

$10,299

Faith-based Programs

n/e

n/e

n/e

n/e

n/e

Correctional Industries

-5.9%

$5,360

$4,496

$417

$9,439

Basic Adult Education

-7.0%

$6,325

$5,306

$962

$10,669

-9.0%

$8,114

$6,806

$1,182

$13,738

Vocational Education

Source: Washington Institute for Public Policy (2006)

Program Evaluation
Of those states surveyed; Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas provided us with helpful information regarding their organized .

18

anti-gang initiatives. 5 Because these programs were typically conceptual models, there was little
discussion of a documented plan or solid initiative. Accordingly, very little empirical research
exists to validate their various methodologies. Despite that wealmess, much can be learned from
their survey responses.
There grew out of these programs accomplishments as well as common frustrations. One
common theme throughout these programs is the existence of a hierarchical command structure.
That is, the majority ofthese programs had one specific person (a superintendant, a highly
ranked correctional officer, etc.) who directed a structured group of subordinates assigned to
respective facilities (correctional officers, investigators, etc.). When asked about the
disadvantages of such hierarchical structures, respondents stated that the advantages of funding
and operating a legitimate STG intervention far outweighed the disadvantages so long as
everyone was constantly aware of current STG behaviors and program resources. In addition,
each state that utilized a hierarchical command structure listed "communication" as one ofthe
five most effective ways in which their unit deals with the gang problem. 6 In essence, the main
reason these hierarchical command structures are so effective was because they were highly
organized, and naturally facilitated valuable communication.
One of the most common frustrations expressed by the more progressive states in the
current study was lack of funding. Moreover, many of them described situations where they
were able to identify and isolate a specifi,c gang problem only to become powerless once they
realized that they did not have the funds to combat such a problem. With that in mind, each of
the more progressive states expressed a desire for simpler programs that could be implemented
with the least amount of money yet 'with the greatest possible resource. When asked to elaborate,
many respondents discussed the need for more advanced ways to gather intelligence about gang
activity in the community as well as the prisons. One example of a state investing in more
sophisticated intelligence gathering is that of Texas. Texas's anti-gang'office recently developed
a computerized gang tracking system to be used for identifying gang activity throughout the
state. Respondents cited the most successful use of this tracking system as being in Houston,
TX,where law enforcement also· uses the system to locate and refer offenders to program
services. Texas's respondents suspect that minor modifications to the tracking system could
make it useful to correctional officials as welL
In terms of what did not work within these states' anti-gang initiatives, many respondents
referred to the process by which gangs are classified as a Department of Corrections recognized
Security Threat Group. Respondents claimed that while it is important to determine the unique
characteristics of each gang, the process of classifying them is time-consuming, arduous, and
expensive. Moreover, many of these respondents expressed frustration with the classification
process taking away time that could be spent on the suppression and intervention of such gangs.
Despite the fact that the classification process uses time otherwise dedicated to prevention,

Respondents surveyed in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wisconsin also
referred to the existence of organized gang efforts, but provided little infonnation that contributed to the current
study.
6 Other popular answers throughout these main nine states included: identifying the problem, cooperation, being able
to delegate tasks onto others, knowing when to ask for help, knowing when a problem is beyond reach with the
available resources, and organization.
5

19
•••

. ,.·.. r n

~,~

.

i"

I.; \ .. J

fu.-.()5
./

'

l:_~ .','

suppression, and intervention, many states require it in order for the programs to receive funding.
In short, because it is a funding criterion and thus .cannot be eliminated, respondents simply
conveyed a desire to simplify and streamline the classification process.
According to the states surveyed, one intervention that is becoming increasingly popular
is that of tattoo removal. Not only are tattoo removal programs held in high regard by
coordinators of anti-gang initiatives, but they are also known to be quite effective in terms of
suppressing gang activity (see Putnins, 2002). Many former gang members have reported that
their primary motivation for see.king tattoo removal was to "go straight," disassociate from their
group and leave their violent past behind (Poljac and Burke, 2008; Shelton and Peters, 2008). In
addition, these former gang members claim that tattoo removal was necessary in order to protect
themselves and their family members, as recognition by a member of a rival gang member could
result in a rather violent confrontation (Gurke and Armstrong, 1997; see also Brunk, 2003;
McKechnie et aI., 2008; Poljac and Burke, 2008).
Nearly all of the states surveyed testified to having at least one tattoo removal clinic
available for former gang members. Moreover, the vast majority or'states surveyed attested to
the effectiveness of tattoo removal programs and expressed desire for an increase in such
programs. The states with the most effective tattoo removal programs described their removal
clinics as non-profit, and composed of volunteers who work hard to provide low-cost or free
tattoo removal to former gang members (Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and
Virginia). In addition, tattoo removal services were frequently rendered by local doctors who
volunteered for the clinics in their spare time.
Many of the states surveyed claimed that their tattoo removal programs were designed in
order to create gang prevention, suppression, and intervention across the state. Moreover, the
vastmajority of such programs tended to be designed for younger inmates and aimed to increase
their educational and employment opportunities. The more progressive state correctional
agencies exchanged tattoo removal for community service, school involvement, vocatIonal
training, or employment, while one state? required that the client participate ina six-month·
program before receiving removal services. By causIng the inmate to accomplish something,
each program claimed to require the aforementioned pro-social activities as a means to
transform former gang members into more productive citizens as well as enhance public safety
throughout the community upon re.,.entry.
When a gang member enters a correctional facility, the recognition of tattoos can create a
dangerous environment in a number of ways (Malon and Russell, 1999). First, these tattoos are
often used as a means for recruiting incoming inmates into a "car" composed of fellow gang
members. 8 As these "cars" increase in size, so does the danger they pose to the rest ofthe
correctional community. A second way tattoo visibility creates a dangerous environment is
through the provocation of rival gang members. When an inmate observes a rival gang's symbol
Illinois
It should be noted that the majority of America's prisons have rules in place prohibiting gang r~cruitment from
within prison. Nevertheless, many of these rules are not properly enforced, and a large amount of gang recruitment
goes unnoticed by correctional officers.
7

8

20

in the form of a tattoo, it immediately causes the tattoo's owner to be perceived as an enemy,
frequently leading to misconduct and violent disruptions in the prison environment (Gurke and
Armstrong, 1997; Phelan and Hunt, 1998). Because of the danger posed by tattoo visibility,
respondents tell us it is imperative that tattoo removal services be provided to inmates upon
entering correctional facilities. Unfortunately, however, it is extremely rare for a correctional
facility to house such programs. In fact, while many of the states surveyed in the current study
attested to the effectiveness of tattoo removal programs within the community none of them were
aware of similar programs existing within their prisons. In addition, similar studies found that
99.5 percent of prisons in the United States do not currently offer tattoo removal programs
(Knox, 2005). Many correctional facilities could benefit from providing tattoo removal for
incoming inmates as the existence of such programs would likely decrease the incidence of
violent disturbances between rival gang members. While tattoo removal programs continue to
flourish in community settings, correctional facilities cannot afford to ignore the potential benefit
these programs could provide.
One of the more increasingly popular trends visible to correctional officials is the idea of
incorporating the community into the anti-gang movement. Many·of the states surveyed stated
that the community's cooperation was necessary in order to achieve effective gang prevention,
suppression, and intervention. The idea of giving the community a more active role in the antigang movement is extremely important, as it can lead to a reduction in recidivism among
recently released gang members. Klein (1995) parallels this argument, stating that "street gangs
are by-products of partially incapacitated communities" and that there.should be an increase in
resources designated to transform the structures within these communities (p. 153; see also
Zevitz & Takata, 1992). STGs in our prisons are merely extensions of those incapacitated
structures. In addition, Klein (1995) emphasiz~s the importance of family support, health care,
education, employment, and social services for both returning inmates and current residents.
In order to provide more effective re-entry programs for recently released inmates, many
communities are modeling programs after the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention's (OJJDP) Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention (also
referred to as the Spergel mode1).9 In essence, the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Modei is .
utilized under the assumption that a multi-dimensional approach, combining typical re-entry
programs (e.g., job training, education, and healthcare) with community involvement, is
s~gnificantly more effective than a one-dimensional approach (see Spergel and Grossman, 1997;
Spergel et aI., 1998).
In addition to facilitating an effective re-entry environment, the OJJDP Comprehensive
Gang Model further enhances the anti-gang movement throughout the commUnity by taking
advantage of five core strategies. The first of these five strategies is community mobilization,
which includes community groups and agencies, citize]J.s, and youth. The second strategy refers
to the provision of academic, social, and economic opportunities. The model's third strategy
consists of social intervention, which refers to the use of street outreach workers to interact with
at-risk and current gang ~embers. The fourth strategy is gang suppression which includes the
To be sure, while the OJJDP title assum~s its model only deals with juvenile offenders, many ofthe states
surveyed claimed to have programs modeled after OJJDP's model that are intended for adult offenders (most
notably, Massachusetts).
9

21

use of various social control mechanisms of community agencies and the criminal justice system.
Finally, the fifth strategy consists of organizational development and change which refers to the
appropriate integration of the first four strategies as well as the desigp.ation of funds throughout
all involved agencies (see Spergel and Grossman, 1997; Spergel et aI., 1998).
Of the above five strategies, the provision of academic, social, and economic
opportunities is clearly the most important for offenders returning to the community. The gang
suppression stage, however, is also vital in terms of re-entry. This is due to the fact that
throughout the gang suppression stage, local groups and community-based agencies are working
together with various criminal justice agencies in the surveillance of the recently released gang
members (see Spergel and Grossman, 1997; Sperge1 et aI., 1998). This becomes extremely
important when one considers Decker's (1996) seven-step process that describes the manner in
which gangs become increasingly more violent. In the first step of Decker's (1996) model, gang
members feel loosely attached to ·their fellow gang members. In the second step, a perceived
threat from a rival gang causes the bonds between gang members to strengthen dramatically
(Decker, 1996). With the appropriate application of the gang suppression stage of the OJJDP
Comprehensive Gang Model, however, the surveillance of these gang members would allow law
enforcement to prevent Decker's (1996) second step from occurring, thus prohibiting members'
bonds from strengthening. In short, the gang suppression stage prevents gang activity from
escalating in a community, and further limits the criminogenic opportunities of recently released
gang members.
Unfortunately, very little anti-gang programming exists within correctional facilities
within the United States. Of all the states surveyed in the current study, very few discussed the
existence of these programs within the prison community~ Moreover, in Knox's (2005) study, he
found that only 15.7 percent of prisons throughout theUnited States had programs to assist
inmates in quitting gang life. Instead, the majority of anti-gang programs in these states exist
outside of the prisons. While these community-based gang programs may be effective for
offenders who are motivated to change their lives, they do little for those still incarcerated who
are not interested in leaving the gang subculture.
One very common obstacle seen throughout our survey is the issue of funding. In fact,
every correctional employee surveyed expressed at least some frustration with the lack of
funding allocated to their state's gang problem. When asked to elaborate on the funding issue,
many of the respondents expressed a desire for simpler, more cost-effective programs as well as
increased intelligence gathering. Many of the respondents believed that if intelligence-gathering
techniques were improved, then the government would be able to intervene in gang activity
before it became a significant problem.
When queried about written plans or guidelines for STG population management
strategies, we learned that many institutions operated without such policies. Tacitly understood
in some circumstances was the idea that such policies might be misunderstood and confused with
segregation. In sum, however, we learned from these institutions that their perceived successes
with lowering institutional misconduct came by way of occupying the inmate's time with
educational and vocational programs, volunteer tattoo removal programs, former STG member
mentoring, interventions that encouraged pro-social thinking and improved communication
22

skills, centralized intelligence and investigatory efforts, well-informed legislators chairing
appropriations committees, staff who had "bought in" to interventional goals, and gang
prevention strategies that extended into community programs usually conjoined with local law
enforcement.
Domain Analysis
The Department's administration has identified several broad objectives for the agency:
1) to operate in a manner that provides maximum safety for the public, staff and offenders; 2) to
pUnish those convicted of violating criminal laws by denying them their personal liberty; and, 3)
positively impacting offenders by stressing personal responsibility and accountability, and by
discouraging recidivism. Today, a major Department focus is on reducing recidivism-or
repeated criminal behavior-through "re-entry" programs that treat the underlying causes of
criminal behavior, including lack of education, inadequate job skills, and addiction to drugs or
alcohol. Nothing in this'report is intended to conflict with the Department of Correction's
Strategic Plan 2009-2015. We do, however, discuss below some of the challenges relating to
STGs and how the Department might deal with them.
Interventional Observations
Regarding STG efforts. to recruit individuals or recruiting interventions, we noticed that
most of the inmates were initially challenged by resident gang members immediately upon
arrival at their assigned facility. Although their identification as an STG prospect through word
or deed may have preceded them in some instances, new inmates were most notably recognized
by their tattoos (Tobin, 2008). If there were to be an intervention regarding tattoo removal, it
would likely have more success while the inmate is being processed through WCC and prior to
their arrival at the resident facility. Current rates for laser removal or electrolysis stand at
approximately $150 an hour. To perform this service statewide may, of course, be cost
prohibitive. This is why many state agencies that we surveyed secured tattoo removal services
from local doctors or technicians who donated their time and equipment. To offer the service at
WCC would indeed cause the Department to transport already-placed inmates enrolled in a "Step
Down" program who now request to have their tattoos removed. This may be a minor
consideration as we project the participation of already-placed inmates to be reduced.
We envision this component to be part of a larger effort in the orientation process at

wce that includes one-on-one sessions with STG members by associates of faith-based groups,
inmate/prisoner caucuses, and former gang members who have demonstrated to the Department
a willingness to ministerto potential inmates vulnerable to STG recruitment. Understandably,
there exists a great uneasiness among Department officials regarding the involvement of former
gang members and leaders in a mentoring process. If properly monitored, however, the situation
presents an opportunity for the Department to make great gains with mature members of the
inmate population in areas of mutual trust and'respect; feelings sensitive to minorities.
When we first set out to survey the respective state correctional agencies regarding their
STG intervention efforts, we expected to find neatly crafted policies and well-structured action
plans. On the'contrary, whafwe discovered is that each agency that acknowledged a STG

23

,

presence dealt with their problem arbitrarily or through several programs piecemealed together to
form one unified effort. Oddly enough, the most well-defmed, neatly written, and intricately
structured program was right here'-in Washington State. Department leaders have set out to
establish a flow of success for those inmates wishing to promote to lower custody levels. As a
direct result, the Violence Reduction Plan and Re-Entry Initiative at CBCC has incorporated
within its delivery structure.a Step Down component for STGs wishing to progress to lower
custody general population beds (See Appendices A, B, and C). Costing less than $200,000 a
year, this program is oriented toward granting STG members the time and resources to develop
social skills to successfully reside in general population and promote through tlie custody levels
using social knowledge, self awareness, and self control. Though still in its infancy, the program
is coordinated by administrators within the facility who have a track record of reducing violence.
Since their appointment in 2003, CBCC has experienced marked reductions in violence and
misconduct. WSP and MCC also have fledgling Step Down programs operating at this time as
well.
Figure 3: Fiscal Year Levels of Reported Violence per 1000 Inmates by Facility
50 . . , - . - - - - - - . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

30
20

+--.l~-

10 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0+------,.----,----..,..-----..:..----.------."
FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

Source:' Washington State Department of Corrections (2008)

With few exceptions, CBCC's plan offers the Department a structured yet
progressive option in dealing with the STG population and addresses each of the
aforementioned core services necessary to effect successful interventions. Our only
reservation about this program, however, is the use of one-on-one-psychotherapy in the clinical
sense. Recent research is mixed on its effectiveness and suggests that it shows marginai gains
with respect to decreased recidivism. Perhaps the most controversial portion of the CBCC
program is that it doesnot.require STGs to renounce gang membership (R. Jackson, 2006;
Richards & Deuel, 2001; Scandroglio, et aI., 2008). To support such a measure, scholars identify
two important things. First, to strip an inmate of his identity is perceived as a matter of
disrespect. The goal in this effort is to reduce the likelihood of criminal behavior associated with
gang membership. As stated in codified law, gang membership without criminal behavior is not a
criminal offense. Forcing the STG member to immediately renounce his membership without
first causing him to be bonded with a more positive group of people would create quite a'
personal deficit. As it would turn out, CBCC officials report that each participant voluntarily
renounces their affiliation during the later phases of treatment. Second, forcing the STG member
to renounce his membership is a clarion call to other members that he is now disrespecting his
own family - or STG. To do this would place the inmate in immediate physical danger. To

24

effectively navigate this crossover, policymakers should allow some "faking it to make it" on the
part of program participants until they feel they are safely through the Step Down process.
A pronounced theme throughout our survey of correctional agencies was that keeping
employees informed of program direction was critical. Current attitudes regarding violent crime
coupled with recent intolerance for highly sensationalized gang behavior has perhaps caused
some to disbelieve in more treatment-oriented efforts as opposed to the more attractive sanctionoriented ones (Freed, 1999; Melville, Public Agenda Foundation New York NY., & Domestic
Policy Association Dayton OH., 1986). While the CBCC plan includes the participation of an
Improvement Team, perhaps it will take a facility-wide initiative, be itvertical staffing or other
employee dialogue measures, to reach those disenfranchised from progressive intervention
efforts.
Our observations of employee attitude extend far beyond their perceptions of
rehabilitation and punishment. Perhaps the most powerful tool available to staff is their use of
discretion and how it is perceived by inmates. Yet, during our time in each facility, we heard
. from inmates and correctional officers a general attitude of "it' s us against them." This mutual
understanding for one another at the yard level seeks to undermine everything that the
Department hopes to gain with respect to reducing levels ofmisconduct. Let there be no
misunderstanding. We acknowledge the Department's duty to control every aspect of the
correctional environment to include the delivery of deadly force. No doubt, managing a small
population responsible for almost half of the institution's misconduct must be difficult for any
individual. In many instances, a firm hand is necessary. However, it is the spirit of the delivery,
inmates say, that causes them to harbor a measure of resentment as well as perceived inequity.

Institutional Observations
If research tells us anything about changing the way people think and causing them to
communicate more effectively it is that such an effort is futile when it is not-sufficiently balanced
by an accountability mechanism. Broadly defined, the Department will not succeed in any effort
to either intervene on behalf ofan STG hoping to leave the gang or reduce levels of institutional
. misconduct without being provided the necessary resources to make those intervened
accountable for their behavior. Inmates committed to stepping down to lower custody levels
should be assured the Department has in place a mechanism(s) to deal with their disrespect of
intervention efforts afforded them.
In the past, this has amounted to overt measures observed by many but respected by few.
During our conversation with inmates, we learned that they continue to dialogue over the
telephone with criminal associates in the community to conduct future criminal acts. They do so
admitting that they realize that two or three investigators can hardly spend time to monitor
35,000 calls each month. Using or selling another inmates PIN is common practice. They
continue to compromise staff to secure drugs, cell phones, and other contraband because they
realize it is likely that these same investigators will be otherwise occupied with internal matters.
Furthermore, they recognize that when such matters are indeed discovered each investigation
usually requires a hemorrhage of resources from other facilities leaving those facilities to
become vulnerable to increased criminal activity. Remembering that legislators have asked

25

Department leaders to be "smart," it is perhaps time we realize it is also important to provide the
human capital necessary to operate smart tools such as the digital telephone recording reviewer.
We would hardly assign only three correctional officers to watch 35,000 closed-circuit monitors
yet we expect three investigators to monitor the same amount of telephone calls each month.
Knowledge is power. In many ways, the Department's record keeping is deficient in this
regard. For example, one intelligence analyst is responsible for managing the entire gang
intelligence database for the Department. Anlong his other duties are providing training to other
investigators, traveling to other jurisdictions, sometimes out of state, to provide training to other
agencies and speak at conferences, interview newly incarcerated STG prospects, assist in
managing information for investigators, and facilitating requests from higher authorities from
within the Department. While he is performing one task, he is hardly managing the others
through no fault of his own. When he is ill or on paid leave, his duties are not performed by any
other Department member. Quite simply, in his absence, the task is not completed. The
information that this analyst collects is critical to the intelligence process and the subsequent
contacts by staff that follow. At the very least, the Department should provide one additional
staff member to this position and explore ways to add additional staff to assist them in this
regard. On an added note, the Department should continue efforts to improve their own data
collection system. Although state law mandates the creation of a statewide database, it remains to
be seen at the time of this study exactly how the measure will be funded or which application
will be selected.
Intelligence exchange at the investigator level is also lacking in some respects. While
others report they can call an investigator from another facility, some tell us that their contact
with other investigators is limited. In times past, investigators met quarterly with each facility
paying travel costs. In recent years, however, fiscal measures have limited travel to necessary
ventures. Another facet of limited exchange exists with the reporting process. Many
investigators tell us that correctional officers are forwarding either incomplete reports or reports
requiring more information. On many occasions, little information is provided in the report that
might serve to assist the investigator in determining the extent that STGs are or are not a
significant factor in the matter. In many instances, these matters are resolved at the supervisory
level. What investigators are seeing lately, however, is a systemic disregard for even the most
basic elements of the reporting process. If the Department is to secure intelligent information, the·
process is surely to begin with the correctional officer.
The emerging technological market has caused law enforcement in general to fall behind
in many respects. For the correctional facility there is perhaps no greater threat to security than
the unauthorized introduction of a cell phone into the general population. For that reason there is
no greater prize for an STG member than to compromise staff in order to obtain one. These
investigations are often times complex and require the involvement of many ancillary services to
include local law enforcement, wireless providers, and forensic examiners. On many occasions it
is necessary to obtain information immediately to safeguard the security of the facility. Yet, in
those areas where local law enforcement is less than willing to proceed with an investigation due
to lack of resources, the Department is caused to suffer in this regard.

26

The greatest shortfall to the Department as they seek to address the STG issue, however,
comes in the way of staff both in quality and quantity. Even though Department investigators
become involved in the matters of existing employees, they are not called upon to perform
background investigations on prospective applicants. This is not to suggest that they could or
would have the time to do so. Rather, we are curious to know why it is a security matter
perceived as one best handled by the Human Resources Department. Inmates admitted to us that
correctional officers entering the workforce now are quite younger, with less life experience, and
more tolerant ofurbari life. They seem to be easier to compromise, they tell us. Our observation
alone during a recent investigation revealed a compromised employee hosted a MySpace page
which included images of him displaying gang signs. With Department regulations accepting
applicants who are 18 or older, investigators acknowledged to us that if an applicant does not
disclose prior employment, which is likely for one graduating from high school, it is unlikely
that they would receive a thorough background investigation. It is here that the Department
stands its greatest risk of infiltration and compromise. At the very least, the Department should .
explore efforts to restrict recently hired staff from protracted interactions with STGs and
consider the possibilities of creating specialty positions staffed by more mature employees to
work in closed custody areas having higher concentrations of STGs.
On the other hand, the Department suffers greatly in the area of staffing. Every
progressive agency involved in the treatment, intervention, and suppression of STG behavior
employed, within each facility, an investigator dedicated wholly to STGs. This member serves as
the contact person for each facility in the entire scheme of an agency's STG effort and also acts
as an investigatory liaison to intra-agency intervention specialists. This particular employee is
empowered to lead the STG effort within each facility without the distraction of other duties
given his fellow associates or political pressure from the administration. For the Department in
this regard we see this position as having a dUlll role: 1) to detect ongoing behavior, criminal or
otherwise, by STGs committed to disrupting a safe environment; and, 2) tq support those STGs
committed to their participation in a Step Down process by monitoring their behavior through
telephone contacts and drug dog searches. Presently, the Department asks investigators from
.
each facility to equally execute the.first role without having the resource to carry out the second.
It is our recommendation that the Department make as its first budget item, in addition to
existing personnel, the creation of a full-time STG investigator charged with the aforementioned
.
dual role.

Recommendations
By tradition, the term "best practices" in corrections has referred to conventional
intervention strategies - currently practiced behavior management models used to treat
heterogeneous populations of offenders based on the practical knowledge and understanding of
those skilled in the field. Regrettably, many of these programs were misguided in their attempts
to rehabilitate offenders and resulted in seemingly marginal gains. However, correctional
officials have now directed their efforts to creating a synergism of research and practice.
Consequently, the idea of best practices in corrections is now rooted in data-driven decisionmaking methodologies.

27
~

..

;!i;f

--. :, .., (1

IJ~ ;_i

\~,

() r)

J 0 0 0

At their core, quality programs and interventions promote the development of strong
cognitive, academic, and vocational skills which, in turn, help to expand employment
opportunities essential to the challenges of offender re~entry.Managingand treating the unique
and pronounced .behaviors of STGs should bring corrections officials to move toward more
progressive yet incremental processes. To do this, we considered eight themes as a basis for
analysis and recommendation. These best practices are summarized as follows: 1) statewide
leadership, policy, and direction; 2) interfacility cooperation and communication; 3) facility
leadership, policy, and direction; 4) intake and assessment procedures: 5) hiring, training,
experience, and professional development; 6) program curricula; 7) partnerships with local
educational and vocational agencies and employers; and, 8) assessment and follow-up.

Statewide Leadership, Policy, and Direction
Lead and direct the strategic state-wide development, implementation, management and
evaluation of all STG services and programs in custody to ensure that they are comprehensive,
coherent, and reflect best practice on reducing re-offending and providing safe and dignified care
to offenders as they relate to the objectives of the Department's Strategic Plan. To do this,
administrators should:
1. Continue to develop and implement strategies that facilitate a flow of inmates to lower
custody levels based upon their participation in specified interventions to include the Step
Down program for STGs; pursue funding efforts in this regard.
2. Identify, develop oracquire appropriate systems, resources Or tools to effectively record,
measure, and analyze STG misconduct through the contracting of an outside source to.
include a volunteer work-study or apprentice-type consortium of graduate students from
nearby· institutions of higher leaming trained in methodologically sound data collection
techniques; pursue funding efforts in this regard.
3. Include in future considerations relating to prison construction the need for specialized;
protective, or separate housing to accommodate Step Down programs.
4. Continue to develop the pilot Special Investigations Unit at Department Headquarters and
direct complex investigations, to include all STG involvements, tmoughinvestigators
assigned to that unit.
5. Immediately staff each facility with an added investigator position dedicated entirely to
the behaviors of STGs; pursue :fqnding efforts in this regard.
6. Establish a Department presence in statewide gang prevention efforts, especially with
agencies and organizations such as the Violent Crime Task Force in Yakima.

Interfacility Cooperation and Communication
Demonstrate structures and processes for correctional staff from different facilities to
communicate with each other and share important information related to STG needs, interests,
and progress within the respective treatment and management programs. To do this,
Superintendants should:
1. Work with Department leaders to standardize their treatment of STGs so that offender
populations who are so inclined will possess a certain level of expectation.
2. Respect the decision to centralize investigatory supervision as one that promotes
transparency and mutual trust.

28

Facility Leadership, Policy, and Direction
Demonstrate a clear mission and vision for programs among treatment principals and
classification counselors related to policies and procedures affecting STG programs and develop
useful data for Identifying areas of weakness or growth. To do this, Superintendants should:
1. Follow the Department's lead in this regard and budget accordingly.
2. Provide staff with orientation materials that describe the goals and intentions of the .
various treatment opportunities afforded STGs (this measure is intended to accommodate
employees who have already graduated from the correctional academy).
3. Allow selected staff, investigators and correctional officers, to attend STG meetings
hosted by local law enforcement; pursue funding efforts in this regard.
4. Allow selected staff, investigators and correctional officers, to attend regional training
opportunities as the budget allows; pursue funding efforts in this regard.
5. Continue to work with each local law enforcement entity (Police, Prosecutor, and Public
Defender) regarding the arrest, prosecution, detention, and adjudication of STG-affiliated
persons involved in criminal activity within facility walls to include budgetary
considerations if necessary.

Intake and Assessment Procedures
Establish a comprehensive, standardized, objective, and validated intake procedure that,
upon the admission of the inmate to the corrections environment, can be used to assess the
immediate risks and needs the individual requires related to their desire to avoidSTG affiliation.
To do this, the Department should:
1. Continue to assess and classify each individual but modify the procedure to allow the
individual to be de-classified upon successful completion of a Step Down program.
2. Amend the orientation process at WCC to include one-on-one sessions with offender
caucus members, faith-based counselors, and mentoring adult inmates (formerly STGaffiliated) familiar with the STG interventions offered by the Department.

Hiring, Training, Experience, and Professional Development
Hire applicants most suited for STGinteraction. Provide opportunities for professional
development on a regular on-going basis and promote incentives for staff to avail themselves of
such training. Also provide options for updating staff on educational policies and practices
initiated by p~riodic in-service meetings. To do this, the Department should:
1. Eliminate their policy of hiring prospective applicants under the age of twenty-one.
2. Assign seasoned and mature correctional officers to units densely populated with STG
activity and provide said officers with specialty status and pay.
3. Afford their investigators with funding to join regional gang associations and attend
training coordinated by said association.

29

Program Curricula
Develop, for each STG member requesting such programming, an individualized plan
based upon the CBCC Re-EntryNiolence Reduction/Step Down initiatives that explains what
interventions should be provided to the inmate during their period of incarceration to ensure that
their return to the community is safe, productive, and successful. To do this, the Department
should:
1. Develop and distribute, to prospective and existing staff, orientation materials outlining
the goals and objectives of the Department's STG Step Down programs in an effort to
gain support and understanding from said employees.
2. Continue to expand cognitive-behavioral interventions strategies as outlined and
described in the CBCC initiative.
3. Augmentdiversity instruction to include intra~cultural awareness.
4. Foster a sense of accomplishment and positive bonding by adding to the prospectus an
extra-curricular component comprised of organized athletic opportunities to include
interfacility competition and augment the weightlifting privilege to include aerobic
concentrations as well.

Partnerships with Local Educational and Vocational Agencies and Employers
Provide STG members with functional, educational, and vocational competencies based
upon market demand and public safety requirements and offer them opportunities to participate
in work assignnients aild skill building programs that build toward successful careers. To do this
the Department should:
.
1. Familiarize legislators with empirical evidence, replicated tim~ and again, that indicates
inmates who participate in college courses during incarceration are less likely to .
recidivate and petition them to vacate recent changes to codified law that further
constricts the inmates ability to obtain governmental funding for said opportunities.
2. Explore involvement in cOlpmunity tattoo removal interventions that include voluntary .
participation from local area doctors or technicians; establish reimbursement policies for
inmates wishing to have tattoo removal performed at an expense.

Assessment and Follow-up
Institute uniform standards and procedures used to assess STG member's progress..
Monitor and docUment offender's progress and program completion pre and post release.
Participate in on-going continuous program improvement processes. To do this, the Department
should:
1. Develop uniform standards as set forth by CBCC Re-Entry/Violence Reduction/Step
Down programs, that reflect both theory and performance, for measuring and certifying
satisfaction completion of said programs; Continue to study viability of Inmate
Mentoring efforts.
2. Hire or assign (through the contracting of an outside source ora volunteer workstudy/apprentice-type consortium of graduate students from nearby institutions of higher
learning trained in methodologically sound data collection techniques) to the Offender
Programs Administrator, or a Department designee, a person to identify, develop or
30

acquire appropriate systems, resources or tools to effectively record, measure, and
analyze STO member progress and outcome.

Conclusion
Historically, Washington State has been a leader in criminal justice affairs when it comes
to Sex Offender Management Strategies, Re-Entry Initiatives, and CoIinnunity Correction
Workload Research. It should be no surprise then to [md that Department leaders have acted
progressively in their approach to manage STOs within their facilities. Overall, we found the
Department ep.gaged in management efforts that were methodical and firm, yet dignified. Indeed,
the Department has been tasked to aid and manage a difficult population. No doubt, many STO
members will be filled with skepticism once they sense a change. Some may inquire and others
may summarily reject offers to better themselves. However hindered by a secretive and counter":
cultural effort to undermine the positive collective values society hopes to promote, the
Department by way of this study takes the first of many steps to forge a much improved future
for those STO members seeking to achieve stability and' social value. Moreover, it is our desire
to cause stakeholders otherwise convinced that "nothing works" to make way for Department
members committed to rebuilding lives and protecting the community through evidence-based
interventions that "really do work."

I

I,
I

31
'1

,",'.
'J

n q \oJ') .,.f

'.J u' u

References
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Bamoski, R., Lieb, R., & Washington State lust. for Public Policy Olympia.
(2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefits ofPrograms To Reduce Crime. Version 4.0
(No. WSIPP-01-05-1201): Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 110 East Fifth
Avenue, Suite 214, P.O. Box 40999, Olympia, WA 98504-0999. Tel: 360-586-2677; Fax:
360-586-2793; Web site: http://www.wa.gov/wsipp.
Brunk, D. (2003). Tattoo removal program helps remove gang past. Skin and A,llergy News, 34.
Burd, G. (1981). The Qualitative Legacy ofParticipant-Observer Approaches among
Sociologists and Journalists from the Chicago Urban Tradition .
.Cunningham, M. D., Sorensen, J. R., & Reidy, T. J. (2005). An Actuarial Model for Assessment
. of Prison Violence Risk Among Maximum Security Inmates. [Reports - Evaluative].
Assessment, 12(1),40-49.
Daniels, P. (2008). Gangs. Detroit: Greenhaven.
Decker, S.H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly 13.
Decker, S. H. (2003). Policing gangs and youth violence. Belmont,CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. Understanding the Black Box of Gang Organization:
Implications for Involvement in Violent Crime, Drug Sales, and Violent Victimization.
[Reports - Research]. Crime & Delinquency, 54(1), 153-172.
Ekland-Olson, S., & Kelly, W. R. (1993). Justice under pressure: a comparison ofrecidivism
patterns amongfour succ€1ssive parolee cohorts. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Esquith, R. (2007). Build Trust, Banish Fear. [Reports - Descriptive].lnstructor, 116(6),47-49.
Freed, C. (1999). Round Pegs in Square Holes: The Many Faces of Systemic Failure. [ReportsResearch]. Journalfor a Just and Caring Education, 5(4),462-475.
Goldstein, A. P. E., & Huff, C. R. E. (1993). The Gang Intervention Handbook: Research Press,
2612 North Mattis Avenue, Champaign, IL 61821
Great Britain. Directorate ofInmate Programmes. Regimes Research and Development Section.,
& Great Britain. HM Prison Service. (1992). The implication ofrecent research for the
development ofprogrammes and regimes ~. seminar report, Newbold Revel, 2-4 March
1992. London: Regimes Research and Development Section.

32

Gresham, F. M. (2005). Methodological Issues in Evaluating Cognitive-Behavioral Treatments
for Students with Behavioral Disorders. [Reports - Descriptive]. Behavioral Disorders,
30(3),213-225.
Gurke, B., & Annstrong, M.L. 1997. D-Tag: Erasing the tag of gang membership. Journal of
School Nursing, 13.
Jackson,L., & American Correctional Association Lanham MD. (1998). Gangbusters: Strategies
for Prevention and Intervention: American Correctional Association, 4380 Forbes Blvd.,
Lanham, MD 20706; toll-free phone: 1-800-222-5646; World Wide Web:
http://www.corrections.comlaca
Jackson, R. (2006). Inside the Gray of Gang: Reflections on the Arts and Youth Violence.
[Opinion Papers]. Education Canada, 46(3), 50-52.
Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Knox, G.W. 2005. The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STGs) in American prisons
today: Recent research fmdings from the 2004 prison gang survey. National Gang Crime
Research Center.
Lattimore, P. K. (1995). Predicting Rearrest for Violence among Serious Youthful Offenders.
[Reports - Research]. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 32(1), 54-83. .
Lindsey, D.G. and Kearns, R.A. 2008. The writing's on the wall: Graffiti, territory, and urban
space in Auckland. New Zealand Geographer 50.
Mallon, W.K. and Russell, M.A. 1999. Clinical and forensic significance of tattoos.' Topics in
EmergencyMedicine 21.
McKechnie, M.L., Porter, G. and Langlois, N. 2008. The detection oflatent residue tattooink
.pigments in skin using invisible radiation photography. Australian Journal ofForensic
Sciences 40.
Martinez, P., & Texas. CriminaLJustice Policy Council. (1998). .Texas prison housing
configtiration and the management ofinmate security risks: report to the governor and
Legislature. Austin, Tex.: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
Melville, K. E., Public Agenda Foundation New York NY., & Domestic Policy Association
Dayton OR. (1986). Crime: What We Fear, What Can Be Done. National Issues Forum
&ri~.
'
Palumbo, D.J., Eskay, R. and Hallett, M.A. 1992. Do gang prevention strategies actually reduce
crime? Washington, DC: National In:stitute of Justice.

33

Pederson, W. D. Inmate Movements and Prison Uprisings: A Comparative Study.
Phelan, M.P. and Hunt, S.A 1998. Prison Gang Members' Tattoos as Identity Work: The Visual
Communication of Moral Careers. Symbolic Interaction 21.
Polaschek, D. L. L., Wilson, N. J., Townsend, M. R., & Daly, L. R. Cognitive-Behavioral
Rehabilitation for High-Risk Violent Offenders: An Outcome Evaluation of the Violence
Prevention Unit. [Reports - Descriptive]. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 20(12),
1611-1627.
. Poljac, M.S. and Burke, T. 2008. Erasing the past: Tattoo-removal programs for former gang
members. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 77.
Putnins, A 2002. Young offenders, tattoos, and recidivism. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law 9.
.Rice, E. (1980). Assessment ofQuality Vocational Education in State Prisons.
Richards, M. A, & Deuel, V. (2001). Kids, Cops, Counselors, and Character: Teaching Respect
and Responsibility at the Middle LeveL [Reports - Descriptive]. Joitrnal ofSchool
Improvement, 2(2), 16-22.
Sam Houston State Univ. Huntsville TX. Criminal Justice Center., & Texas State Dept. of
Criminal Justice Huntsville. Windham School System. (1994). Prison Education
Research Project. Final Report.
Scandroglio, B., Lopez':Martinez, l, & San Jose, M. C. (2008). Gangs: Groups of Young People
and Deviant Behavior--The Psychosocial Perspective in Analysis and Intervention.
[Reports - Research]. Electronic Journal ofResearch in Educational Psychology, 6(1),
65-94.
Shelton, J.A and Peters, C. 2008. An exploratory investigation of identity negotiation and tattoo
removaL Academy ofMarketing Science Review 12.
Spergel, LA, and Grossman, S.F. 1997. The Little Village Project: A community approach to the
gang problem. Social Work 42.
Spergel, LA, Grossman, S.F., and Wa, K.M. 1998. The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction
Program: A three year evaluation. Unpublished report. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.
Steinke, P. Using Situational Factors to Predict Types of Prison Violence. [Reports - Research].
Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation, 17(1-2), 119-132.
Tobin, K. (2008). Gangs: an individual and group perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.l:
Pearson/Prentice HalL

34

Valliant, P. M., Sloss, B. K., & Raven-Brooks, L. Effects of Brief Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
on Recidivism among Sex and Non-Sex Offenders. [Reports - Research]. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 25(1-2), 163-174.
Weisfeld, G. E., & Feldman, R. (1982). A Former Street Gang Leader Reinterviewed Eight
Years Later. [Opinion Papers Reports - Research]. Crime and Delinquency, 28(4),567581.
. Zatz, M.S. (1985). Los cholos: Legal processing of Chicano gang members. Social Problems 33.
Zevitz, R., & Takata, S.R. (1992). Metropolitan gang influence and the emergence of group
delinquency in a regional community. Journal ofCriminal Justice 20.

35

. ~,r:

',.
,,'--

n i\l..; ':t
/1

II J ''..."
.1' '...,i

I
APPENDIX A

II
I'I

I
I

36

I'

Re-Entry Initiative Implementation
Clallam Bay Corrections Center
Decision Package Performance Points
11. Transition Program
Focus on offenders initially classified as maximum or close custOdy on to
programs to reduce violence and create the opportunity for them to progress
to lower custody general population beds..

Parallel Community Orientation. (new offender orientation)
• 30 hours per week
•

Weekly group for offenders transferred to CBCC to orient them to the
routines, procedures and culture.
• CBCC Culture
• Cognitive Skills Overview
• Program Readiness.
• Interventions
./ Intake classification with .intervention mapping

Step Down
•

•

•
•

Five programming phases running ·concurrently and continuously .
• Phase 1: In IMU preparing for Step Down
• Phase 2: Transition to separate Step Down unit
• Phase 3: Residential halfway
• Phase 4: Controlled exposure to general population
• Phase 5: In general population at CBCC or transferred to
a different facility where the offender can be in general
populCition.
Mandatory programming
• 2 book groups, Man's Search for Meaning, and As a Man Thinketh.
• Advanced Living Skills
• Stress/Anger Management
• Self Repair
• MRT
• Meditation
• Education
• One-on-one sessions with mental health
Elective programming
• Inside-Out Dads
Statistics
• 17 Currently enrolled
• 23 Graduated

37

•
•
•
•
•

13 Terminated from program for violations
7 Released to community prior to completion
60 Total enrolled in program
33 Achieved custody promotions
13 custody demotions
./ Terminated and demoted to IMU

Re-Entry
• Quarterly enrollment of 20 offenders with 12 months or less left to serve.
• . Mandatory 15 hours weekly in the following programs:
•
Life Skills
•
Commitment to Change
•
Stress/Anger Management
•
Chemical Dependency Education
•
Countdown to Freedom
• Job Hunter (no facilitator from Employment Security as of 8/08 due
to hiring freeze).
• . Elective classes
• Inside-Out Dads
• Getting It Right
• Statistics
• 23 graduates
• . 11 currently enrolled
• 11 terminated
•
3 released to the community prior to completion
• 48 total enrollment
•
8 promotions to minimum eligibility or work release eligibility
• 4 demotions to IMU
Maximum-Expiration Date Offenders
•
On-going open-entry group
.
•
Transition from IMU'to unit separate from general population
•
Programming
• Commitment to Change
• One-on-one psychotherapy
• Family reunification/family conferencing for individual offenders as
needed
Intensive Management Unit
• Programming
• MRT·
• GED
.
• Stress/Anger Management'
• Meditation

38

I
,

•

Mental health services
• 3D-day and gO-day reviews
• One-on-one services as needed
• Weekly tier/cell checks
./ 120 offenders seen in past 4 months
../ Successful recruitment strategy for Step Down program
• Mental health recognizes they are unable to provide adequate
s~rvices to· intervene most effectively with. those at risk to harm
themselves or others due to understaffing

Family Reunification
• One-on-one meetings with offenders to assess family issues
• Help offenders learn ways to make their children's needs a priority
• Identify and rectify deficiencies in parenting skills
• Teach offender the value of a father's love and acceptance for his children
• Provide assistance, when appropriate, to work with the children's ,
caregiver to strengthen the parental bonds
.
• Marriage Encounter
. .
'. A Christian-based program to strengthen relationships between
offenders and significant others.

Healthy relationships and family ties have a' significant impact on reducing
recidivism. Helping offenders learn to strengthen family relationships, particularly
with their children, is one way to make communities safer since children of
incarcerated parents are at risk for incarceration themselves as juveniles and

.

~u~

Family Friendly
Ii
Family-centered activities that require programming and infraction-free
.behavior on the part of the offender.
.
.
• Family video program
• Music video program
.• Father and child day· .
• Read-to-me-Daddy video
Offender Change Groups-General Population
• Stress/Anger Management - quarterly
• Job Hunter - contracted for 12 groups per year
• Getting it Right - contracted for 6 times annually
• MRT - ongoing
• Inside-Out Dads - quarterly
• Spanish Parenting - semi-annually
• Relapse Education - quarterly

39

Education
• Enrollment quarterly
• Basic Skills/GED
• Peninsula College provides 40 hours of ABE/GE:D instruction to
mixed classrooms of medium and close custody offenders.
./ Since July 1,2007, 138 offenders in medium and close
custody earned their GEDs.
• Daily instruction, 1 hour per day, to Step Down and IMU offenders.
../ Since July 1,2007,3 IMU offenders earned their GEDs..
• CASAS Scores
./ 139 offenders achieved an increase in reading scores
./ 187 offenders achieved an increase in math scores
• English as a Second Language classes
• Parenting classes
• Vocational courses
• Human relations
• Vocational writing
• Math for the trades
• . Building systems technology
• Information technology
.• Bookkeeping (Fall '08)
•. Correspondence education
Facility Jobs
'. Correctional Industries
.' Approximately 95 offenders employed .
• Working approximately 3500 hours per week'
.• Facility jobs
• Approximately 355 offenders employed
• Working approximately 11 ,050 hours per week

i

I.

,.

Mental Health
• Services provided to Re-entryNiolence Reduction programs in Step
Down, Maximum-Expiration and General Population with specific targeted
and measurable treatment goals:
• Individual and group therapy
.
• Medication referral and monitoring
• Suicide Prevention
• Violence Reduction
• 30 and 90-day mental health reviews of the maximum custody
population in the IMU
• Psychological Testing for purposes of:
./ Diagnosis and treatment planning
./ Risk Assessment
. './ Interventions

40

I.

i

I'
I
I

I
I

, II .

•

Re-Entry: Step Down
• 12 weeks ofone-on-one and group therapy services and classes in
IMU, including psychological testing
• 36weeks of one-on~one and group therapy services and classes in
segregated unit to support psychological and cognitive changes
• Total one-on-one mental health time since 12/7/07 when
psychological associate began seeing offenders: 314 hours
• Total group time: 520 hours
• Offenders terminated from Step Down and returned to IMU receive
2-4 hours of service per month to aid in transition and violence
_
reduction
• . Rei-Entry: General Population.
• Treatment goals are identified by both offender and mental health
staff during the course of treatment for a population 12-18 months
prior to release
• One-on-one services provided to offenders who·self-referred·or
who referred by staff
• Group therapy services provided by the mental health staff'include
10 weeks of the following:
Countdown to Freedom
Stress/Anger Management
Individual mental health. services are also available.
Total group mental health hours: 84
.• Re-Entry: Max-Ex
•. Individual mental health services are available for this offender
population (generally 90 days prior to release).

Violence Reduction/lntervehtion Programs
• Clallam Bay Improvement Team
• 6 offenders and 6 staff meet every other week to evaluate, research
and implement violence-reduction ideas submitted by staff and
offenders.
.
'
• Solicitation of violence-reduction ideas from offenders promotes·
. 'investment in creating. a better living environment at CBCC.
• 'Offenders who submit ideas are engaged in problem-solving
activities, and more effective written and oral communication.
• Enhances constructive communication skills, conflict resolution
skills and effective problem-solving skills that can transfer to other
'situations within the facility.
• Reduces conflict through results-oriented cooperation.

•

Meditation groups
•. Offered in IMU, Step Down and General Population
• Through the development of meditation skills, offenders learn to slow
down and manage their thoughts.

41

•

Offenders experience the difference between reacting and responding,
enabling them to change their thoughts and then their behavior..

Prior to brain-imaging technology,. physical and psychological effects of
meditation were measured through blood pressure and heart-rate readings and
by having subjects self-report.
Now through brain-imaging technology,
researchers .have discovered that meditation counteracts the "fight-or-f1ight"
response, and directs blood flow to the parasympathetic nervous system,
encouraging relaxation as well as a slower pulse rate. This is particularly
noteworthy when considering 'violence reduction strategies, and enabling.
offenders to plan and respond, rather than react, to situations.
•

Eyeglass Mentoring Project
• Coordinated program with the offenders' PEACE group, the Lions Club
in the community and offenders in the Step Down program.
• "Lifers" or offenders with long sentences within the PEACE group
mentor offenders in the 3rd and 4th phases'of Step Down.
.
.
• Eyeglasses are refurbished and returned to the Lions Club for national
and international distribution.
• Offenders experience the opportunity to give back to soci~ty.
• Promotes self-esteem building, teamwork and cooperation.
• Statistics for July and August 2008
../ 4,433 pair of glasses processed
../
384 pair of glasses refurbished

•

PEACE group
•. Incre~se staff support and opportunities for fund-raising activities.
.• Offenders giving back, and the community all benefit from the group's
commitment to use fund-raising activities for scholarships for local
.
..
students and to send children to camp.
• PEACE group board meetings' promote rule following through
adherence to the group's bylaws, enhanced communication and
problem-solving skills, and an investment in cooperation between
themselves and staff members so the group can continue to operate.
• EDVITA
• Rese~rch-based violence-reduction program utilized in educational
settings targeted CBCC as a corrections. pilot project at no cost to the
department.
• Anticipated implementation was Spring '08, but is pending due to
funding issues.
• Non-Violent Communication Program .
• Series of 1-hour orientations on this ·communicatio"n process scheduled
for September '08.
.

I

i

·42

rn ()'i48

.o;,.
i,I • .J~
' ..... ;~ u~

'Jrlo

·1

I
I

i
I

•

•

Couples' workshop scheduled for November '08 to strengthen
relationships with significant others, reduce violence and impact
recidivism.
• Parenting workshop yet to be scheduled to teach parents how to use
this communication process to enhance children's self esteem and .to
teach their children refusal skills around drugs, gang activity and other
. criminal activity.
.
Dialogue Group (in process of being developed)
• Provides offenders with a forum to discuss a variety of topics related to
pro-social behavior and violence reduction, loosely based on David
Bohm's dialogue process.
• Through discussion, offenders gain insight into. past behavior and to
identify new behaviors and thought processes for the future.
• For offenders who have met their "need to belong" through gang
affiliation, provide an alternative to meet that need.

Offenders are being introduced to a range of violence-reduction programs rather'
than just one program so they receive the message that CBCC is promoting a
cultural change. One way to measure success is to expect violent infractions to
decline. Another way to measure success is to notice the content of
conversations with and between offenders, and to· note the increase in the
number of offenders who are engaged in making CBCC a safer environment by
their eagerness to discuss new ideas and by the suggestions they submit to the
violence reduction coordinator. The violence-reduction strategies have not been
in place long enough to measure the impact on the number of violent infractions,
but there' is definitely a segment of offenders, who have influence, who are
submitting excellent ideas to reduce violence and gang activity.

12.

Implement the Step Down Program

The Step-Down program is a 12-month program with five phases, which began
on 09/21/06.
A Multidisciplinary Team, i.e. mental health, case management, Intelligence and
Investigations and custody staff assess offenders for: .
• Number of serious infractions and/or violent acts
• .Number -of Intensive Management Unit placements
• Security Threat Group Affiliation
• Willingness to participate
• Physical, mental and emotional capabilities to accomplish behavior change
To be placed in the Step Down Program, offenders must commit to:
• Complete the individualized learning requirements
.
• Personal change and self-improvement while in prison and in the community
43

I·

•
•

Addressing offense patterns
Improving coping skills

The pace of Step Down is oriented towards giving offenders the time to develop
social skills to successfully live in general population and promote through the
custody levels, using three primary factors:
1. Social knowledge
2. Self Awareness
3. Self control
In each of the growth areas offenders are given instruction, tasks and reflective
time to develop Physically, Emotionally, Mentally, Socially, and Spiritually as they
progress through the following phases:
"

•

Phase 1 - in the Intensive Management Unit, limited to small group
introduction (4 to 6 offenders) for up to 90 days.

•

Phase 2 - Transition to a segregated unit to develop the Step Down
.foundation, Offenders participate in structured core classes, and receive
individual counseling to develop social skills as well as personal
management skills.

•

Phase 3 -Increased participation in life skill building activities, therapeutic
small groups and individual counseling in less restrictive settings. There is
a greater focus on self-control, constructive communication, conflict
resolution and improving relationships with .others.

•

Phase 4 - Exposure to the general population for the purpose of practicing
newly-acquired skills in the normal prison environment. Offenders are
expected to work, recreate, and attend other programs and meals o~tside
the Step Down living uhit. Individual counseling work continues.

•

Phase 5 - Staff evaluates and monitors progress in general population
and/or after release into the community.

Rl?ferrals are accepted from the Intensive Management Unit at CBCC as well as
from other facilities throughout the state. Twelve offenders in IMUs at CBCC, WSP, SCCC, and WCC are awaiting screening.

13. Establish a segregationlresidential unit separate from genfJral population and the
IM.U, to transition offenders into the general population and a lower custody level.
Clallam Bay Correction Center has designated D Unit for Step Down and other
. transition programs: The programs include Parallel Community Orientation for
'newly-arrived offenders, phases 2, 3 and 4 ~f the Step Down program and
.

44

Maximum Expiration offenders released from IMU to receive transition
programming prior to release to the community.

14. Provide front-end assessments, integrated programming, transition pltmning and
follow-up sessions for offenders not ready to deal with a general population! unit.
•

•
•

.•
•

Chain review: a lieutenant reviews all incoming offenders prior to arrival and
meets with a team to identify those who will need to be segregated from
general population
Classification Counselor prepares behavior assessment and screening
packets.
Multidisciplinary Team reviews:
• Offender's risk assessment
• Offense cycle
•
Criminal history
•
Infraction behavior
• IMU placements
•
Mental health testing
Counselor conducts initial Interview with offender to discuss options
available to him.
Weekly sessions conducted with offender, mental health staff and
classification to assess growth in:
•
Social knowledge
•
Self awareness
•
Self control

15. Targetintervention such as cognitive skills, life skills, education, case
management, employment, therapy and behavior expectations to address the
offenders· related risk factors during residential assignment and while
programming in the Transition Unit.
•

•

•

Classification Counselor prepares a facility plan based on offender's needs
and meets with the Facility Risk Management Team to address
recommendations.
Programs and classes are targeted to address deficiencies in life skills,
, cognitive/behavioral development, pro-social skills, and educational,
vocational, and parenting/family skill deficiencies.
Weekly team meetings held to monitor offenders' progress. Interventions
are implemented to address behavior and adjustment, or other needs.

16. Implement programming in
known to be successful.
•

a method that utilizes lherapeutic techniques that are

The following classes and experiences challenge thought processes, make
the link between changing thoughts and changing behaviors, encourage

45

.

'

reflection and the development of insight, and provide the opportunity to
develop new life, personal management and violence reduction skills:
• Individual Psychotherapy
• Advanced Living Skills
• Self Repair
• Stress Anger Management
• Moral Reconation Therapy
• Inside Out Dads
• Meditation
• Commitment to Change
• ABE Education
• . Relapse !;:ducation Program
• Job Hunter/Getting It Right
•

Instructional techniques include lectures, videos, integration of material
through facilitated discussion and homework assignments, and
opportunities to demonstrate and apply the skills.

.17. Assign staff to the required self-contained unit to provide timely and targeted
services and interventions.

.

Multidisplinary Team:
Jeri Newman, Corrections Specialist 4
Bert Jackson , Psychiatric Associate 2, Mental Health.
Steve Blakeman, Corrections Unit Supervisor, IMU
Cheryl Cheney, Corrections Specialist 3,
Violence Reduction and Family Reunification
.
Tammee Heckathorn, Step Down Classification Counselor
Laura Paul, Administrative Assistant 3
. These team members work either exclusiv.ely, primarily, or as consultants in the
self-contained D unit.
18. Allow for offenders in the Step Down Program to palticipate in the food Service
program.

Currently, phase 4 offenders are approved to work in the Food Services Program
(facility kitchen) at Clallam Bay. We are in the process of developing aFood
Services Program in D unit that includes educ;:ation on nutrition, meal planning
and food preparation. Offenders will learn both cognitive and practical skills that
will enhance their own physical and mental health, and will be appiied in the unit
kitchen. These skills will also transfer to job skills upon release to the community

46

' .. J~ I~'
0", .
J

f;

n t..'I 5().... .

<;J U

19. Hire one additional sergeant, one recreational therapist and one cook at each
site for the isolated recreation and food service programs and one psychologist
.associate for mental health evaluations.

•
•
•

•

Correctional Sergeant position was filled on 07/01/08
Recreation Specialist 3 position was filled April, 2008.
Cook AC was filled 5/25/07, but stayed assigned to the main kitchen.
The position became temporarily vacant on 1/15/08 due to an L&I injury.
The person hired permanently vacated the post and the recruitment
process has begun.
Psychology Associate 2 was filled on 8/28/07 to provide mental health
evaluations and individual psychotherapy.

20. Develop a research/evidence-based approach to correctional management that
provide$ a methodology of a "standardized clinical model" and identifies risk and
target~d interventions for the highest risk offenders close to release.

•
•

.•

. A multidisciplinary team assesses risk and targets interventions
A Corrections Counselor develops a facility plan/transition plan that
identifies offense cycle, evaluates past behavior including convictions,
probation violations, infraction history and IMU placements and incorporates
results of mental health testing
Identifies appropriate interventions based on needs assessment to include:
• Offender change groups
• Psychotherapy with the possibility of medication
• Education
• Vocation training
• Facility employment
• Family conferencing/reunification

21.lmp/~ment

cacc

a pilot program at
(with expansion of the program to other
close custody units within the Deparlment) that demonstrates a reduction to
prison rates, segregation placements, fights, rapes, security threat group activity
and new crimes.

The Re-EntrvNiolence Reduction Program targets offenders releasing to the
community in the next 12 months. The goal is for this pilot to expand to provide
services to approximately 100 offenders per year.
The Re-Entry program begins preparing the offender for successful adjustment to
prison life from the time he's transferred to CBCC, and continues until the.
offender is released and re-enters the community. Depending on the offender's
targeted needs, adjustment, offense cycle and STG affiliation, he will participate
. in a combination of thefollowing groups, classes or activities:

47

I
I

I

I.

i
i

I'

Chain Review
• All offenders scheduled for transfer to CBCC are reviewed by a lieutenant
prior to arrival for:
• Violent crimes (including sex crimes) that may pose a threat to the
offender or to others
• Infraction history
• STG affiliation
• Team meeting is held to discuss and decide which offenders should be
segregated from general population for assessment
Parallel Community Orientation
• 30 hours per week, mand~tory attendance
• Weekly group for offenders transferring to CBCC to orient them to the
routines, procedures and culture.
• CBCC 'Culture
• .Cognitive Skills Overview
• Program Readiness
• Interventions
../ Intake classification with intervention mapping
• Initial intervention to reduce violence by:
• Teaches the rule/expectations inthe facility and reinforces the pro.
social behavior of rule following.
• Provides overview of programs and classes allowing offender to
participate in his own intervention strategies.
Step Down
• Four programming phases running concurrently and continuously, plus the·
transition Phase 5
• Phase 1: in IMU preparing for Step Down
• Phase 2: Transition to separate Step Down unit
• . Phase 3: Residential halfway
• Phase 4: Controlled exposure to general population
•
Phase 5: In general population at CBCC or transferred to a different
facility..
• Mandatory programming
.
•. 2 book groups, Man's Search for Meaning, and As a Mim Thinketh.
• Advanced Living Skills
• Stress/Anger Management
• Self Repair
• MRT
• Meditation
• E9ucation
• One-on-one sessions with mental health

48

I

.1

I

I·:

J

•
•
.•

Elective programming
Inside Out Dads

Strategy to reduce violence:
• Interventions with offenders who have cycled in and out of IMU
• Requires commitment to cease violent behaviors through verbal and
written agreements and demonstrated behavioral changes.
• Engages offenders in mandatory cognitive/behavioral change groups
• Isolates offenders from previous problems experienced in general.
population.
• Offenders interact in small groups to encourage group support,
opportunities to give and receive support, and to replace the sense of
belonging previously experienced in gangs...

• . Statistical information
• 17 Currently enrolled
• 23 Graduated·
• 13 Terminated from program for violations
•
7 Released to community prior to completion
.,. Of the. 7 relea~ed to the community prior to completion of the
program, 6 have either re-offended or have community
violations
• 60 Total enrolled in program
• 33 Achieved custody promotions
• 13 Custody demotions
./ Terminated and demoted to IMU

The Step Down does not require offenders to renounce gang affiliation in order to
be accepted into the program, However, no gang-related activity is tolerated
during participation in Step Down. By or during phase 4, all participants have
self-reported that they have voluntarily renounced their gang affiliations. A
possible implication is that an ·effective strategy when targeting gang members is
to provide them with an alternative opportunity to form bonds with others and
meet the need to belong, and to provide them with information, structured
. learning opportunities and discussion periods so they can make different kinds of
decisions.
Interviews with participants support that it is important to place them in a
segregated unit where there are no longer operating from the survival mode.
This gives them the opportunity to integrate new information, reflect on previous
.behavior and develop insight. Also, they consistently report that mental health
services have made a significant difference in their abilities to make different
decisions.

49

Re-Entry
.• Quarterly enrollment of 20 offenders with 12 months or less left to serve. .
• Mandatory 15 hours weekly in the following programs:
•. . Life Skills
•
Commitment to Change
•
Stress/Anger Management
•
Chemical Dependency Education
•
Countdown to Freedom
•
Job Hunter (no facilitator from Employment Security as of 8/08 due
. to hiring freeze).
• Elective classes
•
Inside Out Dads
•
Getting It Right
• Strategies to reduce violence:
•
All classes promote goal setting and decision-making skills
•
Helps offenders identify co.mmunity resources
•
Encourages offenders with up to one year left on sentence to think
about and develop a release plan
•
Intervenes in criminal thinking patterns to encourage different
behavior in the community
•
Offenders develop discipline by attending class, participating and
completing required homework
• Statistical Information . .
• 23 graduates
• 11 currently enrolled
• 11 terminated
•
3 released to the community prior to completion
•. 48 total enrollment
.• 8 promotions to minimum eligibility or work release eligibility
• 4 demotions to IMU
Maximum-Expiration Date Offenders
•
On.:.going open-entry group
•
Transition from IMU to unit separate from general population
•
Programming
.
• Commitment to Change
• One-on-one psychotherapy
• Family reunification/family conferencing activities as need.ed
• Release planning with counselor
Intensive Management Unit

• .MRT
• . GED

50

•
•

Stress/Anger Management
Meditation

Family Reunification
• 1:1 meetings with offenders to assess family issues
• Help offenders learn ways to make their children's needs a' priority
• Identify and rectify deficiencies in parenting skills
• Teach offender the value of a father's love and acceptance'for his children
• . Provide assistance, when appropriate, to work with the children's .
caregiver to strengthen the parental bonds
Family Friendly
. .
• . Family-centered activiti'es that require programming and infraction-free
behavior on the part of the offender.
•
Family video program
•
Music video program
•
Father and child day
•
Read-to-me Daddy video
Offender Change Groups-General Population
•
Stress/Anger Management - quarterly
• . . Job Hunter - contracted for 12 groups per year
•
Getting it Right - contracted for 6 times annually
•
MRT - ongoing
•
Inside Out Dads - quarterly
•
Spanish Parenting - semi-annually
•
Relapse Education - quarterly
Education
• Enrollment quarterly
• Basic Skills/GED
• 3 offenders in IMU received GEDs
• 137 offenders in general population received GEDs from 7/1/07 6/30/08.
• English as a Second Language classes
•. Parenting classes
• Vocational courses
22. Hire one Corrections Specialist 4 for the pilot program

at cacc.

Clallam Bay Corrections Center has hired Jeri Newman on 07/01/07. This'
position is responsible for offender violence reduction and intervention programs,
which includes Intensive Management Unit Step-Down, Parallel Community
Orientation, Re-Entry and Transition programs.

51

I

II
...... '

!

23. Hire one Psychology Associate forthe pilot program at cacc.
Clallam Bay Corrections Center hired a Psychology Associate 2 on 10/16/07.
The person in this position 'provides individual psychotherapy, facilitates small
, groups with mental health programming needs and 'administers psychological
testing to better inform the needs assessment and intervention strategy process.

I,
I!
f

24. Hire one Administrative Assistant 3 for the pilot program at cacc.
Clallam Bay Corrections Center hired ,an Administrative Assistant 3 on 10/29/07:
The person in this position is responsible for statistical gathering,
input data into
.
RPM and data entry for Dr. Lovell.
,

M~ntal

Health
54. Develop a continuum of mental health services to preserve and consolidate
offender achievements.
'
•

•

'The following services' are provided to Re-EntryNiolence Reduction
programs in Step Down, Maximum-Expiration and general population With
specific targeted and measurable treatment goals:
• Individual and group therapy
• Medication referral and monitoring
• Suicide Prevention
• Violence Reduction
• 30 and 90 day mental health reviews of the maximum custody population
in the IMU
• Psychological Testing for purposes of:
, . / Diagnosis and treatment planning
./
Risk Assessment
./
Interventions
Services provided to each program are:
,. Re-Entry: Step Down
./ ,12 weeks of one-on-one and group therapy services and
classes in IMU, including psychological testing
./ ' 36 weeks of one-on-one and group therapy services and
classes in segregated unit to support psychological and
cognitive changes
• Re-Entry: General Population
./ Treatment goals are identified by both offender and mental
health staff during the course of treatment for a population 1218 months prior to release
./
One-on-one services provided to offenders who self-referred
or who referred by staff

52

;

j,

I.
"
J

I
I

!

i
I"

I

I

./

•

Group therapy services provided by the mental health staff
. include 10 weeks of the following:
Countdown to Freedom
o Stress/Anger Management
o Individual mental health services are also available.
Re-Entry: Maximum-Expiration Date Offenders .
./
Individual mental health services are available for this offender
population (generally 90 days prior to release).

55. Provide services for transition between each phase of prison or supervision,
and ensure continued maintenance of gains at the crucial point of reentry into the
community.
'

•

•

•

Mental health services (individual/group therapy, medication referral and
monitoring) are provided to all Re-Entry-Step Down offenders throughout
their program·and upon completion. Services continue when offenders.
are transitioned to general population at CBCC.. When offenders are
transferred to another facility, contact is made with mental health staff in
the SUbsequent facility to staff the cases and ensure continuity of services.
This practice also applies to offenders who are transferred to work release
and those who release to the community prior to completing the program.

•

Mental health staff, in collaboration with classification staff, will ensure the
appropriate contact with program graduates and respective mental
health/classification staff at each point of transition, including the
community; to measure the offender's continued progress using:
• Electronic e-mail communication
• Teleconference with staff and offender whenever possible
• On-site contact based upon current staffing models.
• All such contacts will be documented to ensure continuity with
subsequent staff
l'

All other Re-Entry offenders will be afforded the opportunities for mental
health services to ensure successful transition between the point of entry
and community placement. This process will be coordinated with the
.
classification staff, based upon offender need and existing mental health
services.
GAUISSI (1290) Mental Health Assessments, if appropriate, may be
provided by the mental health staff prior to. the offender's release to the
community. This process of assessment and eligibility is based on the
existence of significant mental health issues and/or physical disabilities,
,whic~ meet the appropriate criteria.

53

. j

!

i

I·
I'

'. ...-. n t('.I l::... 9

,.,.

I

~

~~

:;

~~~

:

~ ~

'-_.I- . ...; U

I

56. Treat the remaining 5,300 offenders under a model with short-term therapy
intervention (6-month program) primarily using group therapy. The therapy
consists of targeted "criminogenic" attitudes and pro-social behaviors.
•
•
•

Mental health services are provided to this population within the delivery
model of group therapy, based upon existing clinical staffing models.
This includes transitional planning between all phases of prison or
supervision.
Individual therapy is also be available, based upon referral status, need/risk
status, and current clinical staffing levels.

62. Offenders identified as having a mental health deficit, but not categorized as
an SMIO are not promoted into a minimum custody facility due to resource
,restrictions. These offenders remain at major facilities and are provided treatment
in a, crisis.
•
.•
•

Mental health services are provided to these offenders upon self-referral or
appropriate medical and/or custody staff.
The initial point of referral will be individual therapy (assessment and offender
need).
.
.
Determination of the significance of presenting crisis with respective mental
health symptoms.

64. Utilize all current psychiatrist resources to allow for offenders requiring'limited
'
,drug treatment to promote to minimum resources.
•

CBCC is in the. process of securing telemedicine psychiatric'services to
increase services since a psychiatrist is not on staff.
• Provide medication services for offenders by utilizing our appropriate Iioensed
medical staff who, manage care through:
• Mental health lntervention
• Medication monitoring
• Follow-up
.• Coordinate with appropriate staff at minimum facilities, including both
mental health and classification staff. Include reminder that psychiatric
consultation, when deemed necessary and/or critical, is provided by both
MCC and MICC.

54

APPENDIXB
I"

!

55

i"

Violence Reduction
I. Gang Violence
a. Approach based on 2 rriain premises
1. I've spent time making myself visible and building trust by
listening and taking care of issues that may seem small to staff, but
are significant to the prison population.
L Need to show I'm trustworthy in order to get the population
to work with me.
iL Took care of issues to demonstrate I'm willing to walk the
walk.
2. Recognize that gangs are disenfranchis~d groups and
historically, suppression makes them stronger.
i. Have sent the message that I want to work "with" them to
reduce violence, rather than develop a program from the
outside that can be seen as something we're doing "to"
them.
b~
Currently, groups of gang members are working on proposals for:
1. Mentodng program between lifers or offenders w/lengthy
sentences and men with new convictions.
i. Includes:
a. more offender participation in teaching peo
, segments.
b. How to avoid problems and do time in a
constructive way.
c. Encouragement to participate in education,
programming.
d. Weekly facilitated discussion groups.
2. Prisoners Against Gang Affiliation (PAGA)
.i. similar to the group listed above, but on a smaller scale for
men who have already chosen to leave the gangs, but need
support'to remain strong in that decision. This plan heavily
emphasizes education and includes a tutoring component.
00

o

3. 'N' Step program to work within the gang structure to transform
the values into constructive changes.
i. Developed by' a gang member who is published.
ii. Emphasizes transforming values and is not designed to
to leave gang ~ffiliation.
0

0

II. Meditation
a. Offered in IMU, Stepdown and workshops
1. Impacts gang violence because a significant numberof
Stepdown participants and individuals who are in IMU have gang
affiliations.

56

0

III. Clallam Bay Improvement Team
a. Solicited violence-reduction ideas from staff and offenders for approx. 2
months, and continue to solicit ideas.
b. Team is comprised of 6 staff and 6 offenders who evaluate ideas,
conduct research and determine if and how they can be implemented.
1. Teaches communication, problem solving and cooperation.
2. Address both iong-term and short-term issues so there are
ongoing successes.
c. Notice the positive impact by the c(;mversations I'm having with
offenders as I'm walking around the facility. I used to hear a disgruntled
tone, but now hear a level of excitement.
IV.· Compassionate Communication (Non-violent communication) workshops.
a. Approx. 150 men participated in 1-hourintroductory sessions.
b. Workshops are being scheduled for Couples, Parents,and for. the men,
themselves.

"

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

VIOLENCE REDUCTION ACTION PLAN

I DATE:7/30108

FACILITY: CLALLAM BAY CORRECTIONS CENTER
PROCESS OWNER(S):
Ron Fraker, Associate Superintendent Operations
Jeri Newman, CS4 Re-entry Coordinator .
Cheryl Cheney, CS3 Violence Reduction Coordinator

.. '. . :: ..

3.

;;

Parallel Communit
Education
a. Basic skills
b. GED preparation and testing
c. English as a second language
d. Parenting
e. Vocational courses
1. Human relations
2. Vocational writing
3. Math for the Trades
4. Building 'systems technology
5. Information technology
6. Bookkeeping (Fall '08)
7. Corres ondence education
Jobs
a. Clerk·
b. Law library clerk
c. Library clerk
d. Food service
e. Barber
f. Custodian

'

Jeri Newman
Brian Walsh

Julie Smith

On oin
Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

. Page 1

:r~!~~1i:i/P;1;~)f .'
. 'OMPLErlONooct

./:'.. DATi:'

' 0

g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.

Laundry
Recreation assistant
Tool crib attendant
Photographer
Correctional Industries
Maintenance
1. Carpenter
2. Electrician
3. Welder
4. Plumber.·
5. Groundskeeper
6. Stock clerk
7. Millwright
8. Custodian
9. Painter
10. Maintenance hel er
Offender change intervention
a. Stress/anger management
b. Job hun(er
c. Getting it right
d. MRT
e. Inside out dads
f. .Spanish parenting
Rela .se education

5.

6.
. '-'-. 1

Re~entry

jeri Newman

Ongoing

Ongoing

a. Life skills
b. .Commitment. to change.
c. Stress/anger management
d. Countdown' to freedom
e. Chemical depend.ency education
f. Job hunter
g. Inside out dads (elective)
i. Gettin it ri ht elective
Max-Ex Program
a. Job hunter
. b. Countdown to freedom

Jeri Newman

C":i

C)

en

01

Page 2

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

~*:

c. Mental health counselin
Step Down
a. Book discussions
1. "As a Man Thinketh"
2. "Man's Search for Meaning"
b. 1:1 mental health appointments
c. Self repair
d. Advanced living skills
e. Stress/anger management.
f. Mental health counseling
g. MRT
h. GED
i. Inside out dads
Meditation
IMUlIMS programming
a. MRT
b. Meditation
c. GED
d. Bible stud
Cultural groups and events
a. Black history/Juneteenth celebration
b. Asian·New Year celebration
c. Hispanic independence celebration
d. PowWow
PEACE group
a. Eyeglass project
b. Scholarshi ro ram
Family Friendly
a. Music video program
b. Family videos
c. Marriage encounter
d. Family crafts-visit room
e. Father and child day event
f. Read-to-me Daddy
g. Gas card program
h. Back-to-school back ack
ram

Jeri Newman

Ongoing

Ongoing

Steve Blakeman··

Ongoing

Ongoing

CICP (Position
Vacant)

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ted Schmidt
Burt Mullin
ClCP (Position
Vacant)

Ongoing
On oin
Ongoing

Ongoing
On oin
Ongoing

./

( '..1

c-"-"' \
c.)
C.:•.- i

Page 3

en

0')
___w_.•._._.....____•.

... _._ ....

_--_ ..

'-

- ...

_-_.__ ..

--_._.-._-,,---_.

......

_-_.._-_.-....

"

. .. ... _.. _.... __.
"

-.-

... _............-... _.._-

--_...... _........._....

_.__._

.

._...__... ..:-----_._---_•..
~

_ _ _ _ .M· • _ _ . ' _ . __ • _ _ _ •_ _ , _ .

..... """'-'-'---'''---

13..

14.

Family Reunification
a. 1:1 interventions for family reunification
b. Famil conferencin
_
Clallam Bay Improvement Team
a. Solicit violence reduction ideas from staff/offenders
b. Team of staff/offenders evaluate ideas for otential im lementation
Recreation programs
a. Open gym
b. Open yard
c. Athletic leagues
d. Holiday contests
e. Hobby crafts
f. Music program
g. Weight deck
Future Programs
a. Music lessons
b. Facility wide Olympics
c. Game club.
d. Yoga class
e. Fitness class

:t.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21 .

Ongoing

Cheryl Cheney

Ongoing

Ongoing

Tim Droz

Ongoing

Ongoing

Pending additional
staff

Pending
additional staff

Ongoing

Ongoing

resentatives

........J

..-._--_... --_ ...•

Ongoing

Doug Duncan

15.

;;

Cheryl Cheney

.Page 4

_--------

••

_

-:

._~_

•• __ : M __ ,_.

. _ .__ •• __ • __ ;

•• _ . _ _ •••• _ _ . _•• _ _ .M. __ •

••• __

•

· .._~~.~
...~ _ . ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -

25.

Store
a. Store purchases
b. Store re resentative meetin s
Staff.su estion box

26.

\

....

Steve Blakeman
Cand ice Palmer
Amber Miller/Jody
Ive
Dean McCoy

Ongoing

Ongoing

Mike Holthe

On oin

On oin

,/

c...:"
.\:.:J

en

ao

._---•..

__

. Page 5

..

_._-~-_

.._ - - _ ....-._--_._-----_....

_--_..-.-._.

....----_..

__.__..

.._-_..__... _._-_.-.-._._---_.

..!....._~.~_

•.-------

Step Down Program
Clallam Bay Corrections Center
Current Participants as of Ju.ne 25.. 2008

. I. Current Groups
1. Group 6 - Phase 4. .
• Five participants
• Scheduled to graduate 8/30/08
2. Group 7 & 8 - Phase 4 (promoted 6/24/08)
• Five participants
(Down to 3:.
.
Agtuca in IMU 6/23/08 for intimidating staff; sent to SCCC;
Graham in IMU, but not for behavioral problems)
• Scheduled to graduate 9/14108
3. Group 9 - Phase 2
• Seven participants
• Scheduled to graduate 1/14/09
. 4. Group 10- Phase 1 (Phase 1 completed in IMU)
• Five participants
• Will graduate to phase 2 and move to "0" unit 9/12/08
j

5. Group 11
. • Four participants identified; 2 additional participants in the
screening process.
• Start date, to be determined
II. Programming
1. Phase 1 - in IMU-Preparation for Step Down·
• 2-hr. group x 8 wks. with Mental Health staff
InCluding discussion about the books, As a Man Thinketh and
Man's Search for Meaning.
• 1.5 hrs. education weekly
2. Phase 2 - Transition to Step Down in "D" unit
• Mental health component
o Self Repair Class
1.5 - 2 hr. weekly x 8 weeks
. 0
Advanced Living Skills
1.5 - 2 hrs. weekly x 12 weeks
o Stress Anger Management
1.5 - 2 hrs. weekly x 6 weeks
o 1:1 weekly % - 1 hr.

-"

APPENDIXC

i.
J

• Education
2 hrs. per week (5:50 p;m. - 6:50 p.m. T, TH)
•

Recreation
1 hr. x 4 evenings weekly (M, T, TH, F, 7-8 p~m.) TAC gym.

•

Library
1 hr. weekly, Monday 6 - 7 p.m .

. 3. Phase 3 - Residential halfway
• Mental health component::'..
o Advanced Living Skills
.1.5- 2hrs. weekly x 4 weeks, followed by
Stress/Anger Management in the same timeframe for 6
weeks.
o . 1:1 weekly:Y2 - 1 hr.
•

MRT
Halfway into phase 3, begin MRT
2 hr. per week x 6.weeks (W, 2-4 p.m.)

•

Inside Out Dads
9-11 a.m. T, TH, x 6 weeks

• . Education
3 hrs. per week (5:50-6:50 -p.m~ M, W, F)
• Recreation
1 hr. 4 evenings weekly, (M, T, TH, F, 8-9 p.m) TAC gym.
1.5 hrs. 2 xweekly (T, F), outside yard.
•

Library
1 hr. weekly,

4. Phase 4 -Parallel Community (exposure to general population)
• MRT
Complete class started in phase 3.
2 hr. per week x 6 weeks (W, 2-4 p.m,.)
•

•

Education
3 hrs. per week (5:50 - 6:50 p.m., M, W, F)
Recreation
Those who have no separatee issues walk mainline for
recreation.

•

Library
1 hour per week

5. Phase 5 -General population
Progress in general population, work or other programs monitored.

,"

,

I

!
!..

I
i
i
!

I'

I
I·

Step Down Statistics
Clallam Bay Corrections Center
Groups completed:
Participants in 6 groups:

6
32

Released to community: 6
Terminated:
11
INS detainer
1
Walking mainline:
14

Community releases:
2 w/new convictions
.
(both-of these released to community during phase 3,
so did not complete program due to ERD.)
2 re,ceived violations for failing to report.
2 have no violations or ~ew charges.
Walking mainline:
3 SCCC
4 MICC
1 Larch
1AHCC
1 CCCC
·1 CRCC
1 CBCC-MSC
1 MCC
1 WCC - in transit
Infractions after transferring from CBCC:
1 tatfoo/paraphern'alia
1 unauthorized tool
1 refusing to leave
,
1 fighting; refusing cell assignment
(this offender indicated placement at SCCC would be a problem, and he
was infracted for fighting soon after his arrival. He has now been
transferred to AHCC)
.
One offender Who was terminated from Step Down later came to the unit as a
max ex case (F.lores). We conducted a family conferencing,circle with him 'and
his family. He's doing well in the community--:-no violations, reporting as directed
and entering treatment for anger management.

I
I

I
I

I
I

Step Down Weekly Schedule - Phase 3
Clallam

Tuesday

Monday
..

"'~:

B~y

Corrections Center
Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

"fi;oo' il
:30~{
.. 9:00~··
:30 ::

10:00 ~l"'"
:30;.

Inside Qlii Dad~ , .

In'side Out Dads

Inside Out Dads

Inside Out Dads

h;sida'oui bads' .

Inside Oui Dads

For 6 of 12 weeks

F'or 6 of 12 weeks

:30')
'12:00~

.....

:30·";

"'1~o6~~o~~~~~~nClalis
. :30

.

:li 6 wks.

Advanced living skills/SAM

. ..... 1:1 ~/;nEmial tie~lth

MRT

1:1 w/mental health

MRT

:30 ::

.....

3~6o~

Adva~~'diivi~g ~kiliS'/SAM"
Advanced living skills/SAM
. Advanetid Livli'ig

:30;;~

MRT 6 of 12 wks.

."4:00 ILtickd~ii/riforCouilt

L~CkdO~~

Lcickd6W~ for count

:30°,'
Lockdown for count
'J.-

Lockdown for count

Lockdown for count

Lockdown for count

".:.:.

:30,;: Dinner

Dinner

6~OO ~ EiJiJCllfici~' ' ,.' ,"

:30 .;'

c. ::'

C' .
......2A

H:'

'.

:30:' TAC gym

."

Dinner

Dinner
•

:'~"

............. :.,

for count ..

Lockdown for count

:

• '.' .'... '

Dinner
r

Educafion'

Education
Library

Education

.... 8:iJlj {~ TAG gym'."
...._ )

skillsisAM

Education

Education

TAC gyiTi .

TAc'gyO\ .

TACgyni'

TACgym

TACgym

TACgym

~~~'-~-----------,------~

Step Down Weekly Schedule - Phase 2..
Clallam Bay Co"rrections Center
Tuesday

Monday

..-,:".; ..

Wednesday

Friday

Thursday

'

"-.:: '.. > .....

.-.::., ..

"',

Lunch'

.:

"

:

~.'

Lurich

Lunch

....

.. "~ ....

.

:';;',

~:.

"

r", .
00

Ii~ing

Self Repair x 8 wks.

Advanced

Self Repair

'Ad(,8nC~d'jivin6~Kilf~~ ,

Self Repair

Advanced living skills

l, ..

skills

Self Repair'

.. ,". . i.~ckdown for CiiU~1

Lockdovin for Count

Lockdown for Count

Lockdown for Count

Lockdown for Count

:. :'~:'>"'.:

",':,1.-

Dinner
"

'.':

..

, '7:06 ~' TAC'~Yrn"

C':J

Ul

TAC gym

, Dinner

Dinner
;

.;.~

Education

Education

TAC'gym'

i'At:gyn;

fAb'~Yrrt

TACgym

TACgym

TACgym

....

:30 ::

"".j

Dinner

. . EdticatiQ~: ....
Library

Lockdown for Count

Plan further ahead with the CalendarsThatWork.com Premium Membership