Proceedings
`of the
`First Annual
`Corrections
`Research Forum
`
`Ottawa, March 1989
`Frank J. Porporino, Editor-in-chief
`
`11+1 Correctional Service Service correctionnel
`
`Canada Canada
`
`GTL 1002
`IPR of U.S. Patent 6,636,591
`
`

`
`The Development of a Prison Incentive System:
`A Case Illustration
`
`By
`J.S. Wormith, Ph.D.
`Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services and Carleton University
`
`As a former researcher who is now an administrator, I am not going to talk about research. Instead, I plan to
`
`talk about processing systems. What I hope to do is to provide an ffiustration of some of the principles that
`have been discussed in this morning's session on prisoner incentive. I see an interesting parallel here, beginning
`yesterday morning with Dr. Andrews who gave a comprehensive review of the risk/needs literature and related
`issues. His presentation was followed by. Larry Motiuk who gave a . specific example . from ŒC about the
`application of those sorts of principles. What I would like to do this morning is provide you with a case illustration
`in the same kind of format. I would like to discuss a monitoring-feedback-incentive scheme.
`
`The Context and Process
`
`It is a humble, modest effort that was undertaken in the province of Ontario's Ministry of Correctional
`Services where offenders are incarcerated for a relatively short period of time. The kind of detail, the amount
`of effort, deliberations, debate, and controversy that have gone into the implementation of this small scale
`case study was really quite onerous for those of us who worked on it and I will try to illustrate some of the
`problems that arise on a practical level when one entertains the prospect of implementing the basic incentive
`principles that were discussed earlier today.
`
`In many ways, this presentation is about a routine effort at record keeping (i.e. the systematic collection of
`information). But does not research begin with the systematic collection, grouping,, analysis and reporting
`of data? That raises an interesting question. Where does administrative practice end and where does research
`begin? My point here is simply that administrative efforts, systematic collection of information, record
`keeping, applied research, and evaluation are all terms with which we are familiar and across which there
`is a tremendous amount of overlap. One of the things I've tried to do as a closet researcher, now
`administrator, is meld some of those historically disparate, at least in corrections, orientations. So maybe this
`is research after all. I don't know, I'll let you decide.
`
`I mentioned that what I'd like to do is to take a system approach. In such a view, the setting and context of
`the application is crucial. This is particularly the case for service delivery and the implementation of
`particular correctional practices or processes.
`
`The origin of this exercise began locally, that is to say at the institutional level. This is an important point
`because, as I recall, we finished off this morning's discussion asking what happens at the institutional level.
`The effort that I'm about to describe was a bottom-up process. It was not a top-down process. At the risk of
`sounding patronizing I took particular note of the Commissioner's comments yesterday about providing an
`opportunity for employees, particularly at the field level, to have freedom, initiative, creativity and, as he
`said, not always having to go to the corporate level for approval for that sort of thing. It was in such an
`atmosphere that this project was initiated.
`
`Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre is small. It was classified as minimum security, but now is a low
`medium' security institution. It consists of two facilities, a 160 bed, traditionally oriented, correctional centre and
`a recently opened treatment centre which is somewhat analagous to jrour regional treatment centres in CSC The
`treatment centre is an 84 bed unit designed to provide treatment services for provincial, adult male offenders in
`
`77
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Eastern Ontario. Like most treatment centre environments, it is blessed with a rather luxurious compliment
`of professional staff.
`
`Information about the setting variables is Crucial to ones understanding of the implementation process. The
`setting here is one which is both administratively and professionally conducive, in fact mandated, to the
`delivery of clinical, specialized treatment services for short term offenders. The principles that I hope to
`illustrate, however, are applicable throughout correctional systems. As my friends in the accounting business
`say, the principles of the small business are the same as a big business, you just move the decimal place over.
`(Perhaps when I talk about weeks, you can think about months and when I talk about months, you think
`about years).
`
`With respect to the setting variables, I had the good fortune to work in an institution that, pre-dating my
`arrival, had Drs. Paul Gendreau and, prior to him, Don Andrews, setting the groundwork and providing
`what in my view was a receptive environment to this activity. Moreover, the centre has an enlightened
`administration at the local level, uncluttered because of its small size and remoteness from the corporate
`bureaucracy of the head office in Toronto.
`
`The development of our rating and incentive system should illustrate what can and/or might be done
`throughout corrections. First, I would like to discuss the process of conceptualization that was undertaken
`and the original development that furthered the initial concept and operationalized the principles. Then I
`will discuss the three stages of implementation. The basic model is outlined in Table 1. The program looked
`very simple, but the more we got involved in this particular application, the more complex it became. We
`begin with the basic system of ratings. As Dr. Quincy was suggesting, accurate behavioural ratings are
`fundamental to instilling incentive in corrections because they can be translated into points and a system of
`levels through which one moves based on the points accumulated. Finally, a system of privileges that
`correspond to the levels is necessary to sustain the process. It was an agonizing process, two years of
`activities; about four to six months of initial planning and designing and eighteen months of implementation
`and refinement that included meetings, deliberations, details, and debate. We worked primarily from a
`consensual model at the local level. The group included administrators, clinical staff and correctional staff
`in the development of this system.
`
`We insisted on feedback from both residents and the correctional officers as we continued with the
`modifications of the scheme. (cid:9)
`•
`
`Inmate Ratings: The Bedrock of Incentive
`
`Beginning with the rating scheme, we began at the conceptual level by identifying a number of basic
`principles that are described in Table 2. Our feeling was that we wanted to conduct weekly ratings of all the
`residents in the treatment centre on all of the activities to which they were assigned through the institutional
`work board. These could be program activities, they could bé work activities, as well as activities in the
`dormitory environment. Incidental programs, like recreation are not included, but all major activities in
`which the residents are involved are included. We wanted to keep the program simple, but we also wanted
`it to be comprehensive. Researchers have a tendency to get more complicated, wanting to include more and
`more things into their scheme. However, we had many people involved in the administration of this system
`throughout the institution. It was important, therefore, to keep a balance between comprehensiveness and
`ease of use.
`
`78
`
`

`
`Ratings
`
`1.
`
`Points
`
`Levels
`
`Privileges
`
`Table 1
`
`Rideau Treatment Centre RatingIPrivilege System
`
`(1-5 Range)
`• All Resident Activities
`• Competed Weekly
`• Calculate Weekly Average
`• Rating Review Committee (RRC)
`
`(+/- 12 Points)
`• Based on Weekly Average
`• Established Decision Rules
`• Cumulative (+/-) over Weeks (RRC)
`
`(4 Levels)
`• Based on Cumulative Points
`•
`Established Decision Rules
`• Override (RRC)
`•
`Feedback to Residents
`• Appeal by Residents
`
`(Varied)
`• Based on Level
`•
`Staff/Resident Suggestions
`• Administrative Authorization
`Earned Remission
`•
`
`Table 2
`
`Rideau Treatment Centre Rating System Principles
`
`1. Each resident should be rated weekly with respect to each program activity in which he is involved
`including un.structured interactions in the living area.
`
`2. The categories to be rated in each rating activity should be defined in behavioural terms with minimal
`acceptable standards specified to promote consistency among different raters.
`
`3. Rating forms should strike a balance between simplicity or ease of use, and comprehensiveness of the
`behaviours to be sampled or measured.
`
`4. For each program activity, the forms should include three categories of ratings:
`
`1. A resident's level of motivation or effort (How hard is he trying?)
`
`2. The quality of his performance or participation (Does he do a good job? Does he provide a
`valuable contribution in groups?)
`
`3. The attitude he displays while he is participating in the activity (towards peers, staff and the
`activity, itself).
`
`79
`
`

`
`In determining areas of activity, there was a great deal of debate about what should be included. We
`operationaliz,ed the concept of motivation, which is theoretical and cannot be measured directly, by actual
`effort. Performance or participation varied depending on the kind of activity rated. Attitude is measured by
`observation of how the resident interacts With his peers, with the correctional staff and with the professional
`staff in the institution. We have attempted to develop a 'behavioural anchor' or some kind of reference to
`which the correctional officers and the professionals can refer in their weekly ratings. The scheme varies
`depending on what kind of activity is being rated but there are certain bendunarks throughout the various
`rating settings. Officers and staff simply circle the appropriate number as can be seen in the rating form that
`is used for treatment groups (Table 3). They have not gotten into the habit of usinedecimal places although
`occasionally they will circle two numbers, (e.g. 3 and 4 to indicated 3.5) and we have not objected to that
`ldnd of scheme when they feel constrained by the simple five-point rating system.
`
`The residents must be present in a work setting at least three out of five days in the dormitory or at least four
`out of seven days to be rated. All activities, as I said earlier, are rated. Consequently, work locations, academic
`and vocational training have parallel schemes although there are key differences that apply specifically to
`the work locations. Instructors, when asked to fill out these weekly rating schemes, are asked to explain their
`rating when it deviates from "3" (Satisfactory) and to justify a non-three score. We have been reasonably
`successful in this area. We also provided a place for comments, again to justify any score that deviates from
`the midpoint, the three-point satisfactory position. All resident activities are rated weekly, then we calculate
`the averages at the end of each week. A rating review committee that has the responsibility of collating each
`residenes ratings meets weekly. We now have a dedicated computer that automates this activity and
`produces individual output immediately for each resident.
`
`Points and Levels: Turning Ratings into Meaning
`
`Next we ask, what are we going to do with ratings? We spent endless meetings deliberating over a point
`system, a structure from which one can translate the weekly average to a scheme of points. After much
`deliberation, a translation of weekly average to point scheme was devised. The result is shown in Table 4
`which is part of the handbook that is distributed to inmates upon their arrival in the institution. The last two
`columns illustrate the time required to move through the privilege levels that are operative in the system.
`It's very easy for a resident to determine his current points based on his average. Knowing his previous
`points accumulated and his rate of accumulation, he can also determine how many weeks it will take him
`to ascend to the next level. To go from Level One to Two requires six points. Twelve points are required to
`go from Level Two fo Three or Level Three to Four. Conversely, residents can be downgraded if their weekly
`averages are less than 3. If they accumulate negative points, they will move down the system of levels with
`the reverse order of points.
`
`So now we have a scheme of ratings, points, and levels. This is all very objective at this point. There is,
`however, a rating review committee that has an 'override' capability and provides an element of discretion.
`If the rating review committee feels that there is something drastically wrong with respect to an individual
`residenes ratings, it may investigate and make adjustments accordingly. Residents can also appeal their
`ratings to the administration of the institution in which case the ratings are reviewed in conjunction with a
`resident "behaviour log" and a response is returned.
`
`The scheme is presented to the residents when they are admitted to the assessment unit of the institution.
`the itunate handbook (see Appendix A) is rather complicated, so an explanation is also given verbally as part
`of the orientation program. Residents are literally walked through the rating systems during their period in
`the assessment unit. As a trial run, they are rated while they are in the assessment unit using the same format
`and the same criteria. However, residents are at no particular level in the unit, we call it level zero. Yet, they
`do earn points based on their ratings and if their balance of points is positive at the end of their assessment
`period, they go into the treatment centre at Level Two. If it is a negathre balance, they go into the treatment
`centre at Level One.
`
`80
`
`

`
`Table 3
`
`Rideau Treatment Centre Weekly Rating Form (cid:9)
`
`•
`
`Groups
`
`Group (cid:9)
`
`Days Absent * Rater (cid:9)
`
`Poor (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`
`2 (cid:9)
`
`Satisfactory (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`
`4 (cid:9)
`
`Excellent
`5
`
`Resident Name (cid:9)
`
`Week Ending (cid:9)
`
`Motivation/Effort
`
`1 = no interest; makes no effort to work with the group • (cid:9)
`•
`3= average: usually pays attention & listens to others; usually contributes positively to the group; could
`do more or lacks consistency
`5= always shows keen interest in the group; always pays close attention; always shows consideration for
`others; always tries to make a positive contribution to the group
`
`Comments: (cid:9)
`
`Performance
`
`Poor (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`
`2 (cid:9)
`
`Satisfactory (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`
`Excellent
`5
`
`4 (cid:9)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 = frequently ignores, interrupts, disrupts, or argues with the group, rejects advice or feedback; denies,
`projects responsibility, minimizes, or lies;
`3= average: usually: on topic; usually contributes to the group; is usually receptive to feedback; could
`make a greater or more consistent contribution
`5= always listens well and accepts feedback and advice; always contributes to the group with constructive
`feedback, confrontation, or support as appropriate; always honest in group & accepts responsibility for
`behaviour; frequently exhibits insight and empathy
`
`Comments: (cid:9)
`
`Attitudes
`
`Poor (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`
`2 (cid:9)
`
`Satisfactory (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`
`Excellent
`5
`
`4 (cid:9)
`
`1 = frequently defensive, self-pitying, complaining, intimidating, or defiant; frequently engages in joldng
`or horseplay
`3= about average: usually tries to be co-operative & serious
`5= always goes out of his way to be helpful to the group; always serious and attentive in the group;
`promotes the goals and values of the group in his day to day behaviour
`
`Comments: (cid:9)
`
`* Notes: (1) Do not rate if absent more than two days!
`(2) Resident must meet all criteria listed if rated 1 or 5
`
`
`
`
`
`81
`
`

`
`Table 4
`
`Points in the Rating System
`
`Average Weekly Rating (cid:9)
`
`Points Earned (cid:9)
`
`Weeks to Move
`3:4
`12 (cid:9)
`
`1.0 - 1.1 (cid:9)
`1.2 - 1.3 (cid:9)
`1.4 - 1.5 (cid:9)
`1.6 - 1.7 (cid:9)
`1.8 - 1.9 (cid:9)
`2.0 - 2.1 (cid:9)
`2.2 - 2.3 (cid:9)
`2.4 - 2.5 (cid:9)
`2.6 - 2.7 (cid:9)
`2.8 (cid:9)
`2.9 (cid:9)
`3.0 (cid:9)
`3.1 - 3.2 (cid:9)
`3.3 - 3.4 (cid:9)
`3.5 - 3.6 (cid:9)
`3.7 - 3.8 (cid:9)
`3.9 - 4.0 (cid:9)
`4.1 - 42 (cid:9)
`4.3 - 4.4 (cid:9)
`4.5 - 4.6 (cid:9)
`4.7 - 5.0 (cid:9)
`
`-12 (cid:9)
`-10 (cid:9)
`-9 (cid:9)
`-8 (cid:9)
`-7 (cid:9)
`-6 (cid:9)
`-5 (cid:9)
`-4 (cid:9)
`-3 (cid:9)
`-2 (cid:9)
`0 (cid:9)
`+2 (cid:9)
`+3 (cid:9)
`+4 (cid:9)
`+5 (cid:9)
`+6 (cid:9)
`+7 (cid:9)
`+8 (cid:9)
`+9 (cid:9)
`+10 (cid:9)
`+12 (cid:9)
`
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`- (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`2 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`
`1
`2
`2
`2
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`6
`-
`6
`4
`3
`3
`2
`2
`2
`2
`2
`1
`
`82
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`
`The following table is a breakdown of one particular residenes weekly ratings in the three areas to which
`the resident has been assigned by the work board and the treatment staff. By taking the row and column
`averages, one can determine the average by rating category, as well as setting. The residenes overall weeldy
`average is also presented. This resident wis at level four and just barely managed to keep above his required
`three-point average. At level four, residents no longer accumulate points over weeks.
`
`In the last six months, we have become concerned about residents who are marldng time. These are residents
`who have achieved Level Four and are doing enough to stay there. Consequently, we added a new feature
`to the program and, I should point out that we are continuously revising the program. If any one rating is
`less than full satisfactory (eg: 0-2.9) in one week, the resident receives a warning. This is an automated
`function that is part of the weekly report produced by a desktop computer. The resident receives a copy of
`his ratings (Table 5) and may see that he had scores below three in certain areas. If he repeats scores of less
`than three in the subsequent week, regardless of what his average is, he'll be dropped one level.
`
`Table 5
`
`Rideau Treatment Centre Weekly Summary
`
`Resident: (cid:9)
`
` Dorm: (cid:9)
`
`
`
`Week ending: Mar. 19, 1989 (cid:9)
`
`Unit Coordinator: Dr. Armstrong
`
`Rating Categories
`
`Motiv/Effort (cid:9)
`
`Performance (cid:9)
`
`Attitudes (cid:9)
`
`Average
`
`3.0 (cid:9)
`3.0 (cid:9)
`2.0 (cid:9)
`2.7 (cid:9)
`
`4.0 (cid:9)
`2.0 (cid:9)
`2.0 (cid:9)
`2.7 (cid:9)
`
`4.0 (cid:9)
`25 (cid:9)
`5.0 (cid:9)
`3.8
`
`3.7
`25
`3.0
`
`3.1 (cid:9)
`
`4 (cid:9)
`
`4 (cid:9)
`
`Points this Week: • (cid:9)
`
`Previous Balance: (cid:9)
`
`Balance this Week: (cid:9)
`
`+3
`
`+0
`
`+0
`
`Activities (cid:9)
`
`Dormitory (cid:9)
`Mutual Aid (cid:9)
`School (cid:9)
`Average (cid:9)
`
`Average Rating: (cid:9)
`
`Previous Level: (cid:9)
`
`Level this Week: (cid:9)
`
`Remarks:
`
`Unsatisfactory rating in Mutual Aid, School this week.
`May drop in level or lose points if ratings unsatisfactory next week.
`
`Signed (0M15): (cid:9)
`
`03-21-1989 @ 1201
`cc Earned Rernission Board
`
`
`
`83
`
`

`
`You will notice that a copy of this document is forwarded to the institutional earned remission board. The
`earned remission board sees every resident's weekly ratings throughout the period of their stay. The reports
`are currently used in a subjective sense by the earned remission board to determine the amount of remission
`that is earned each month.
`
`Privileges: Turning Incentive into Reality
`
`We deliberated at length over the sort of privileges that we might provide as incentives for the program. A
`wide range of input was obtained from administrators, clinicians, the security supervisors, line-staff, and
`even the residents. One might ask whether it is reasonable to ask residents about what kind of 'goodies' they
`want in an institution. In answering this question, I would refer back to one of Dr. Quincy's comments earlier
`this morning about the use of truly 'effective' reinforcers. One of the things we have learned from the
`behaviour modification literature and those token economies of the 1960s and 1970s is that a varies system
`of reinforcers is important as a means of developing offender incentive because we have a vast array of
`individual differences in our institutional populations: A wide range of suggestions were submitted by the
`program development people and we now have a complete privilege system in place (Table 6).
`
`Prestige is part of any institutional subculture and there is now a new subculture which we are hoping will
`supercede the traditional correctional subculture. Level four privileges include things like recurring group
`temporary absences, such as trips into the community to go swimming. One of the interesting items is known
`as 'level four clothing', which is civilian clothing in the institution. There are also little things such as canteen
`items and use of the phone. We debated at some length about how these incentives might relate to the large
`system. Indeed, the Level One inmates, who have lost a level and are in the treatment centre, have
`considerably fewer privileges than are available to the rest of the inmate population. We thought that might
`cause considerable difficulty with irunates becoming frustrated and discouraged. That has not been an
`overwhelming problem. We have been fairly effective in encouraging the inmates to accept their rating and
`the privileges that it may but and now the ratings have really become a weekly event. It has become part of
`the treatment centre milieu. I should add that we do receive weekly questions of appeal from the residents
`who are upset. It is a headache, no doubt about it, but it has been very worthwhile.
`
`Permit me to elaborate on some of the difficulties. One of the items that has become an issue is 'level four
`canteen' (Table 7) whereby residents at Level 4 have exclusive access to special canteen items and then
`proceed to share them with friends. We were also planning to tie ratings and levels more directly into our
`earned remission system and the pay incentive system employed by our ministry. But the latter was
`sabotaged by a change in our ministry policy. In Ontario we now have one level of pay for all inmates who
`are engaged in work in the institution. Consequently we no longer have access to a graduated incentive
`allowance as part of our incentive system. However, we were able to make use of the $8.00 per week that
`the offenders earn by means of what we call 'Level Four canteen items' that are available to the residents in
`the treatment centre. Again, residents are given the opportunity to indicate what special items they would
`like to see in the canteen and many of the items reported here are items suggested by the inmates.
`
`84
`
`

`
`Table 6
`
`Privileges in the Ratings System
`
`Level (cid:9)
`
`Privileges
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Assessment Unit Level:
`Equivalent to level 2, except program TAPs gr RTC outdoor area do not apply.
`May run for Chairman. If AU ratings are satisfactory, resident moves to level 2 on
`transfer to Treatment Unit. If not, he is transferred to Treatment Unit as Level 1.
`
`Unsatisfactory Conduct — basic privileges only:
`1 hour gym per day
`1 one-hour visit per week
`1 movie per week
`Phone calls by request to Shift I/C only
`Vote at house meetings and elections
`
`
`
`All level 1 privileges plus:
`Pay phone: 2 calls/week
`Participation in RTC tournaments
`Run for offices except Chairman or Vice Chairman
`Use of RTC outdoor area (walks gr picnic area)
`Eligible for group TAPs, programs only
`
`All level 1 & 2 privileges plus:
`Pay phone: 4 calls/week
`Run for any office including Chairman
`Interdormitory visiting
`Eligible for group TAP, all types
`
`•
`
`All level 1,2 & 3 privileges plus:
`Unlimited use of pay phone
`Special canteen items
`Special clothing
`Extra "Level 4" movie
`Unescorted walks in RTC outdoor area
`Eligible for extra or extended visits
`Eligible for recurring group TAP (swimming,, etc.)
`Eligible for recurring individual TAP
`Eligible for volunteer program
`
`Notes: Levels are revised weekly, based on behaviour the previous week. Poor behaviour, misconducts,
`or abuse of privileges may result in loss of levels, points, and/or privileges.
`
`85
`
`

`
`Table 7
`
`Level Four
`Rideau Correctional & Treatment Centre
`Canteen Price List
`
`Players Light (cid:9)
`Export A Light (cid:9)
`Coffee (cid:9)
`Coffee Mate (cid:9)
`Sugar (cid:9)
`Tea (cid:9)
`Hot Chocolate (cid:9)
`Head & Shoulders Conditioning Shampoo (cid:9)
`Finesse Conditioner (200 mL) (cid:9)
`Finesse Conditioner (cid:9)
`Nachos (cid:9)
`Reeses Peanut Butter Cup (cid:9)
`Glosset's Peanuts (cid:9)
`Chery Nibs (cid:9)
`Cheese Sticks (cid:9)
`Apple Juice —10 oz. (cid:9)
`V8 Juice —10 oz. (cid:9)
`Granola Bars (cid:9)
`
`Cost
`
`$2.22 pkg.
`$2.22 pkg.
`$0.06 pkg.
`$0.03 pkg.
`$0.01 pkg.
`$0.06 pkg.
`$0.12 pkg.
`$2.90 pkg.
`$2.10 ea.
`$0.60 ea.
`$0.20 bag
`$0.45 pkg.
`$0.45 pkg.
`$0.45 pkg.
`$0.20 bag
`$0.53 ea.
`$0.55 ea.
`$0.27 ea.
`
`System Evolution
`
`The system has gone through a number of phases and we have collected and reported the information by
`phase. During the initial pilot phase, we became aware of some problems. We made some revisions, then
`we opened the assessment unit, and then we introduced the Level 1 component for poor ratings in the
`Assessment Unit. Table 8 shows how these changes affected the speed with which the average inmate
`proceeded through the levels. Table 9 shows the ratings of two locations that are representative of the many
`rating locations throughout the institution.
`
`We spent a considerable amount of time talking about this scheme with correctional officers and they say
`'I'm rating this 'two' because he's not being co-operative in the dormitory'. They are concerned about the
`inmate's behaviour in that particular setting. However, the same inmate may perform in an exemplary
`fashion when he goes to school and he may continue to maintain a high level of behaviour. But we had to
`be sensitive to the correctional staff concerns. Consequently, our current view is that it is important to
`maintain a fully satisfactory rating in all areas and the scheme has been revised to support this principle.
`
`Generally, we find a great deal of correspondence between the three areas. Indeed, we are concerned about
`the reliability of these measures and the influence of positive or negative 'halo effects' when an inmate has
`a good reputation or a bad reputation. Occasionally, the ratings seem to lag behind the impression of the
`individual. If staff begin to see changes in a resident's behaviour, the ratings may start to change a couple of
`weeks later, which is then followed by a change in the residenes privilege level. Clearly, there are
`psyc.hometric concerns about the ratings scheme.
`
`86
`
`

`
`Table 8
`
`Rideau Rating System
`Time Required to Advance Levels
`
`Weeks to Advance
`
`12
`
`10
`
`0
`Initial Phase
`
`Refinement
`
`Begin Assess
`
`Warn/Do
`
`Level 2 K:M Level 3
`Level 1 (cid:9)
`Cumulative Time Spent at Each Level
`Data Presented by Implementation Phase
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Table 9
`
`Rideau Level System
`Dormity, Mutual Ratings by Category
`
`Mean Rating
`
`Motivation Performance Attitude (cid:9) Motivation Performance Attitude
`
`Mi Initial Phase (cid:9)
`
`Refinement L Begin Assess. (cid:9)
`
`Warn/Downgr
`
`Presented in 4 Phases
`
`87
`
`

`
`We clid see a wide range of variability in particular work locations. When the program was implemented, we
`had one instructor who was not too sure about how to respond to the new system. How do you avoid difficulty?
`Simple. You give all your inmates a rating of five. Consequently, some followup effort in dealing with the
`instructor was required and with some refinements to the system, we found quite a change in his rating behaviour.
`Now we are continuously monitoring the ratings that are being submitted from all locations.
`
`Incentive Outcome: A Brief Typology
`
`Finally, I have some individual data representing case histories. One of the interesting sidelights of this
`scheme is that we can see general trends in the inmate population. We can see different groups of inmates
`responding to their progress or lack of progress in the program. Figure 1 represents a 'model imnate' who
`came into the institution, began with fairly high ratings and continued to improve gradually. He ascended
`to level four, maintained his level four status, and continued a slow ascent in his overall ratings.
`
`On the other hand, we had a resident who represents the 'problem in 'te' (Figure 2). Throughout the course
`of his stay, he never advanced beyond level two. His ratings were never consistently high throughout his
`stay in the institution.
`
`Next, we have a case like the first resident who moved very quickly to level four (Figure 3). However, we
`started to see a slide in his actual ratings. Because the level system is somewhat forgiving, this slide was not
`reflected in his level until after a number of weelcs. It took him quite some time to accumulate enough negative
`points to have his lower ratings reflected in a decreased level.
`
`Next, we have a case study of a slow rise (Figure 4). Someone who, in fact, never got to level four until after
`spending five months in the program. Again we see that his ratings reflect some radical behaviour changes.
`
`We also have the case of a person who went through a nuinber of cycles (Figure 5). Three times during his
`stay, he ascended to level four. Think back to your own correctional experience, about residents who were
`not model inmates. You see inmates go through cycles. You see inmates go through a long slide throughout
`the course of their stay in an institution. This kind of feedback is important not just to the administrators but
`the clinicians, and the service delivery people working in the institution.
`
`Finally, we have the fellow who had a great deal of difficulty in the institution but who, within months of
`his release, decided. to "get to level four by the time I'm out of here" (Figure 6). We have seen this king of
`'last spurt' prior to release a number of times. Although we have not done any statistical grouping of these
`profiles, the collection of information in a systematic manner affords the opportunity to do so.
`
`This system raised many questions. I mentioned, for example, earned remission. We now can objectify our
`earned remission system, by tying the points acquired on a weekly basis directly into the days earned per
`month. Those 15 days that residents are eligible to earn each month will in fact be earned in accordance with
`the number of points accumulated over that pçriod of dine.
`
`I trust that this 'illustrative case example has given you a little inspiration as to how the concept of incentive
`that was presented so well this morning can be implemented in a correctional institution. Thank you.
`
`88
`
`

`
`Figure 1
`Average Ratings and Privilege Levels
`as a Function of Time in Program
`
`Average Rating
`
`Privilege Leve
`
`Case Study: Model Inmate (A.A.): Rideau Treatment Centre
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`o
`
`111111 (cid:9) m111111111111 (cid:9)
`t (cid:9)
`1 (cid:9)
`1
`1 (cid:9)
`3 (cid:9)
`5 (cid:9)
`7 (cid:9)
`9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
`Weeks in Program
`
`-8- Weekly Average
`
`-A - Privilege Level
`
`6
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Figure 2
`
`Average Ratings and Privilege Level
`as a Function of Time in Program
`
`5
`
`Average Ratings
`
`Privilege Leve
`Case Study: Problem Inmate (W.L.): Rideau Treatment Centre
`
`2.5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`2
`
`1.5
`
`1
`
`0.5
`
`-8- Weekly Average
`
`Privilege Level
`
`111111111111[11111111111tIl 1 it
`1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
`Weeks in Program
`
`0
`
`89
`
`

`
`Figure 3
`
`Average Ratings and Privilege Level
`as a Function of Time in Program
`
`5
`
`Average Rating
`Privilege Level
`Case Study: Quick Success-Long Slide (K.K.)
`Rideau Treatment Centre
`
`LJ
`
`1. (cid:9)
`
`
`
`12
`
`II
`
`•
`
`PS ; (cid:9)
`
`k
`
`5 -
`
`1.2
`
`A-A
`
`1
`
`- A
`
`-8- Weekly Average
`
`Privilege Level
`
`1
`
`11111111111111111111111111
`3 5 (cid:9)
`7 (cid:9)
`9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
`Weeks in Program
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Figure 4
`
`Average Ratings and Privilege Level
`as a Function of Time in Program
`
`Average Rating
`
`Privilege Leve
`
`Case Study: Slow Riser (L.C.): Rideau Treatment Centre
`
`A-A
`
`--El- Weekly Average
`-A- Privilege Level
`1 (cid:9) 1111111111111111111111111111111
`1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31