Fresh Start 1
Fresh Start 1 is one of three Fresh Start halfway house facilities located in Cleveland, Ohio. This facility serves adult females placed on probation or parole/Post‐Release Control from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). Fresh Start has been in operation since 1968 and Fresh Start 1 has a capacity to serve 18 women. This facility is funded by ODRC as well as ADAS/BCC. Services include substance abuse, education, employment, domestic violence, and life skills. Fresh Start 1 was visited by a University of Cincinnati research team on August 31, 2006 and October 5, 2006. At the time of both visits, there were 16 residents. Ann Seaman was Fresh Start 1’s identified program director.
Program Leadership/Development Strengths:
The program director has a significant role in selecting and training staff.
The program director provides direct services via conducting groups and carrying a caseload of clients.
The program is well established and supported by the criminal justice community.
Problems or crises are handled with a problem‐solving approach and staff and management for the most part work harmoniously.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The program director had a limited role in designing the program as it currently operates.
The program director should provide closer supervision to staff.
While the curriculum was reviewed before its adoption, the program should regularly consult the literature related to effective interventions with offenders.
New interventions should undergo a formal, designated pilot period prior to full implementation of the intervention.
While funding is relatively stable, some funding issues have made it difficult to operate the program as designed.
The program has not accessed external consultants to advise on services.
Staff Characteristics Strengths:
Staff receive clinical supervision by a licensed professional and attend clinical staff meetings regularly.
Staff receive an adequate number of hours of ongoing training.
Staff have a moderate amount of input into the structure of the program and there are ethical guideline in place for staff to follow.
Staff turnover is described as only a minor issue.
Recommendations for Improvement:
Staff are evaluated annually, but the assessment includes limited ratings on the service delivery skills of staff.
Staff should receive additional initial training and more training should relate to the theory and practice of interventions used by the program (for both clinical and security staff), including effective correctional practices and the cognitive‐behavioral model.
While treatment/clinical staff support rehabilitative goals, there is limited support by the security staff.
Assessment Strengths:
The program receives appropriate residents for the services being provided.
The program identifies and follows rational exclusionary criteria for residents.
Recommendations for Improvement:
While the program uses a psychosocial assessment and a criminal attitudes tool, it does not utilize a validated risk or risk/need tool.
While the program uses a validated tool to assess criminal attitude, it does not assess any other criminogenic need domains with validated tools, such as the SASSI or ASI for substance abuse.
The program should have a spectrum of standardized responsivity assessments to assess such areas as motivation, education, personality and learning styles.
The program should provide re‐assessment of risk and need factors.
The program should be targeting moderate to high risk offenders. Since risk is not assessed by the program, there is no way to identify such offenders.
Offender risk levels should be formally tracked.
Treatment Strengths:
The program’s average length of stay is 3 months, which falls within the 3 to 9 month window for an appropriate length of stay in treatment.
Offenders are adequately monitored while on passes to the community via drug testing, schedules/logs and phone calls in and out.
There are several mechanisms that provide offenders with the opportunity for input into the structure of the program.
The types of rewards and punishers used by the program appear appropriate.
The program completion rate is 70%, which falls within the recommended range of 65 to 85%.
The program teaches offenders to monitor and anticipate high risk situations via relapse prevention planning.
Appropriate discharge planning has been implemented.
Recommendations for Improvement:
While some of the program’s targets are criminogenic in nature, many are non‐criminogenic such as self‐esteem, mental health, physical health, and race/ethnicity issues. At least 75% of the treatment focus should be on criminogenic need areas (e.g. antisocial attitudes, antisocial peers, antisocial personality, education, employment, structured leisure, family, and substance abuse).
The primary treatment model is 12‐step and self‐help rather than a cognitive‐behavioral model.
The emphasis on structured skill building (i.e. teaching offenders prosocial skills to replace antisocial skills), including the use of modeling and role play needs to be increased across all groups. Likewise, graduated rehearsal should be used to teach resident skills in increasingly difficult situations.
Structured curricula or manuals should be used for all groups.
Groups should not exceed the maximum recommended facilitator to offender ratio of 1/10.
The amount of time offenders spend in structured therapeutic activity, including treatment, education or employment should be increased.
Treatment should vary by risk so that higher risk offenders receive a higher dosage of treatment.
Likewise, attempts should be made to separate higher risk offender from lower risk individuals in the program.
Risk, need, and responsivity factors should guide how offenders are matched to interventions and staff should be matched to groups based on experience and skill level.
The range of rewards used to reinforce offender behavior needs to be increased as well as the frequency of rewards.
The procedure by which offenders are reinforced should be improved so that rewards are
immediate, seen as valuable for shaping behavior, varied, consistently applied, related to prosocial behavior , desired by the offenders and individualized.
The procedure by which offenders are punished should be improved so that punishers are
immediate, individualized, varied and escape from punishment is impossible. Likewise, staff should be trained on the identification of negative effects of punishers and how to intervene on such effects.
Not all groups are facilitated from beginning to end by staff.
Program completion should be determined by the acquisition of prosocial skills which is measured with pre‐post testing or some other objective means of determining offender improvement.
While the program attempts to provide a family intervention component, only about 10% of the families participate.
While aftercare services are provided by the program, only about 50% of offenders participate in such services. Likewise, aftercare consists of a process group rather than a group designed to practice skills offenders have learned while in the program.
Quality Assurance Strengths:
The program is licensed by ODADAS.
The program uses some internal quality review mechanisms including file review, client surveys, observation of treatment groups, and staff feedback.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The program is not ACA certified.
In order to improve quality assurance, the program should provide increased monitoring of external providers.
The program should either collect recidivism data on offenders discharged from the program or contract with an external provider to collect and analyze such data.
The program (Fresh Start) has been formally evaluated in the past via both a process and outcome evaluation but performed worse than the comparison group on various recidivism measures.
Fresh Start 2
Fresh Start 2 is one of three Fresh Start halfway house facilities located in Cleveland, Ohio. This facility serves adult males placed on probation or parole/Post‐Release Control from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). Fresh Start has been in operation since 1968 and Fresh Start 2 has a capacity to serve 18 men. This facility is funded by ODRC. Services are primarily related to substance abuse treatment. Fresh Start 2 was visited by a University of Cincinnati research team on September 1, 2006. At the time of the visit there were 16 residents. Michael Daugherty was Fresh Start 2’s identified program director.
Program Leadership/Development Strengths:
The program director had a moderate role in designing the program as it currently operates.
The program director has a moderate role in selecting staff.
The program director plays a significant role in supervising staff.
The program is well established and supported by the criminal justice community.
Problems or crises are handled with a problem‐solving approach and staff and management work harmoniously.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The program director has a limited role in formalized training of staff.
The program director should provide direct services to offenders via conducting groups, assessments or carrying a small caseload of clients.
While the program receives some non‐peer reviewed literature, the program should regularly consult a wider range of literature related to effective interventions with offenders.
New interventions should undergo a formal, designated pilot period prior to full implementation of the intervention.
While funding is relatively stable, some funding issues have made it difficult to operate the program as designed.
The program has not accessed external consultants to advise on services.
Staff Characteristics Strengths:
Staff receive clinical supervision by a licensed professional and attend clinical staff meetings regularly.
Staff receive an adequate number of hours of ongoing training.
Staff appear to support the treatment goals and there are ethical guideline in place for staff to follow.
Staff turnover is described as only a minor issue.
Recommendations for Improvement:
Staff are evaluated annually, but the assessment includes limited ratings on the service delivery skills of staff.
Staff should receive additional initial training and more training should relate to the theory and practice of interventions used by the program (for both clinical and security staff), including effective correctional practices and the cognitive‐behavioral model.
Staff have very limited input into the structure of the program.
Assessment Strengths:
The program receives appropriate residents for the services being provided.
The program identifies and follows rational exclusionary criteria for residents.
Recommendations for Improvement:
While the program uses a psychosocial assessment, it does not utilize a validated risk or risk/need tool.
The program should assess a range of criminogenic need domains using validated tools.
The program should have a spectrum of standardized responsivity assessments to assess such areas as motivation, education, personality and learning styles.
The program should provide re‐assessment of risk and need factors.
The program should be targeting moderate to high risk offenders. Since risk is not assessed by the program, there is no way to identify such offenders.
Offender risk levels should be formally tracked.
Treatment Strengths:
The majority of interventions focus on criminogenic needs (i.e. substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, education and employment).
The program’s average length of stay is 3 months, which falls within the 3 to 9 month window for an appropriate length of stay in treatment.
Offenders are adequately monitored while on passes to the community via drug testing, schedules/logs and phone calls in and out.
There are mechanisms that provide offenders with the opportunity for input into the structure of the program including a community meeting.
The types of punishers used by the program appear appropriate.
The program completion rate is 70%, which falls within the recommended range of 65 to 85%.
The program teaches offenders to monitor and anticipate high risk situations via relapse prevention planning.
Appropriate discharge planning has been implemented.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The primary treatment model is 12‐step and education rather than a cognitive‐behavioral model.
The emphasis on structured skill building (i.e. teaching offenders prosocial skills to replace antisocial skills), including the use of modeling and role play needs to be increased. Likewise, graduated rehearsal should be used to teach resident skills in increasingly difficult situations.
Structured curricula or manuals should be used for both groups.
Groups should not exceed the maximum recommended facilitator to offender ratio of 1/10.
The amount of time offenders spend in structured therapeutic activity, including treatment, education or employment should be increased.
Treatment should vary by risk so that higher risk offenders receive a higher dosage of treatment.
Likewise, attempts should be made to separate higher risk offender from lower risk individuals in the program.
Risk, need, and responsivity factors should guide how offenders are matched to interventions and staff should be matched to groups based on experience and skill level.
The range of rewards used to reinforce offender behavior needs to be increased as well as the frequency of rewards. A structured reinforcement system should be developed.
The procedure by which offenders are reinforced should be improved so that rewards are
immediate, seen as valuable for shaping behavior, varied, consistently applied, related to prosocial behavior , desired by the offenders and individualized.
The procedure by which offenders are punished should be improved so that punishers are
immediate, individualized, varied, escape from punishment is impossible and alternative prosocial behaviors are taught. Likewise, staff should be trained on the identification of negative effects of punishers and how to intervene on such effects.
Program completion should be determined by the acquisition of prosocial skills which is measured with pre‐post testing or some other objective means of determining offender improvement.
The program needs to offer training to family members (beyond a program overview) who might assist in providing prosocial support for the offenders.
While aftercare services are provided by the program, only about 50% of offenders participate in such services. Likewise, aftercare consists of a process group rather than a group designed to practice skills offenders have learned while in the program.
Quality Assurance Strengths:
The program is licensed by ODADAS.
The program uses some internal quality review mechanisms including file review, client surveys, observation of treatment groups, and staff feedback.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The program is not ACA certified.
In order to improve quality assurance, the program should provide increased monitoring of external providers.
The program should either collect recidivism data on offenders discharged from the program or contract with an external provider to collect and analyze such data.
The program (Fresh Start) has been formally evaluated in the past via both a process and outcome evaluation but performed worse than the comparison group on various recidivism measures.
Fresh Start 6
Fresh Start 6 is one of three Fresh Start halfway house facilities located in Cleveland, Ohio. This facility serves adult males placed on probation or parole/Post‐Release Control from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). Fresh Start has been in operation since 1968 and Fresh Start 6 has a capacity to serve 50 men. This facility is funded by ODRC. Services are primarily related to substance abuse treatment. Fresh Start 6 was visited by a University of Cincinnati research team on August 31, 2006. At the time of the visit there were 40 residents. Joyce Jordan and Ruby Black were the identified program directors of Fresh Start 6.
Program Leadership/Development Strengths:
The program director had a moderate role in designing the program as it currently operates.
The program director has a moderate role in selecting staff and provides formalized training of staff.
The program director plays a significant role in supervising staff.
The program is well established and supported by the criminal justice community.
Problems or crises are handled with a problem‐solving approach and staff and management work harmoniously.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The program director should provide direct services to offenders via conducting groups, assessments or carrying a small caseload of clients.
The program should regularly consult the literature related to effective interventions with offenders.
New interventions should undergo a formal, designated pilot period prior to full implementation of the intervention.
While funding is relatively stable, some funding issues have made it difficult to operate the program as designed.
Staff Characteristics Strengths:
Staff receive clinical supervision by a licensed professional and attend clinical staff meetings regularly.
Staff receive an adequate number of hours of initial and ongoing training.
Staff appear to support the treatment goals and there are ethical guideline in place for staff to follow.
Staff have a moderate amount of input into the structure of the program.
Staff turnover is described as only a minor issue.
Recommendations for Improvement:
Staff are evaluated annually, but the assessment includes limited ratings on the service delivery skills of staff.
More training should relate to the theory and practice of interventions used by the program (for both clinical and security staff), including effective correctional practices and the cognitive‐
behavioral model.
Assessment Strengths:
The program receives appropriate residents for the services being provided.
The program identifies and follows rational exclusionary criteria for residents.
Recommendations for Improvement:
While the program uses a psychosocial assessment and a criminal attitudes tool, it does not utilize a validated risk or risk/need tool.
While the program uses a validated tool to assess criminal attitude, it does not assess any other criminogenic need domains with validated tools, such as the SASSI or ASI for substance abuse.
The program should have a spectrum of standardized responsivity assessments to assess such areas as motivation, education, personality and learning styles.
The program should provide re‐assessment of risk and need factors.
The program should be targeting moderate to high risk offenders. Since risk is not assessed by the program, there is no way to identify such offenders.
Offender risk levels should be formally tracked.
Treatment Strengths:
The majority of interventions focus on criminogenic needs (i.e. substance abuse, anger, education and employment).
The program’s average length of stay is 3 months, which falls within the 3 to 9 month window for an appropriate length of stay in treatment.
There are mechanisms that provide offenders with the opportunity for input into the structure of the program including a community meeting.
The types of punishers used by the program appear appropriate.
The program completion rate is 74%, which falls within the recommended range of 65 to 85%.
The program teaches offenders to monitor and anticipate high risk situations via processing.
Appropriate discharge planning has been implemented.
Recommendations for Improvement:
The primary treatment model is eclectic rather than a cognitive‐behavioral model.
The emphasis on structured skill building (i.e. teaching offenders prosocial skills to replace antisocial skills), including the use of modeling and role play needs to be increased. Likewise, graduated rehearsal should be used to teach resident skills in increasingly difficult situations.
Structured curricula or manuals should be developed and consistently followed for all groups.
Groups should not exceed the maximum recommended facilitator to offender ratio of 1/10.
While there are some mechanisms in place to monitor offenders while in the community (drug tests.
schedules and phone calls out) monitoring should be increased.
The amount of time offenders spend in structured therapeutic activity, including treatment, education or employment should be increased.
Treatment should vary by risk so that higher risk offenders receive a higher dosage of treatment.
Likewise, attempts should be made to separate higher risk offender from lower risk individuals in the program.
Risk, need, and responsivity factors should guide how offenders are matched to interventions and staff should be matched to groups based on experience and skill level.
The range of rewards used to reinforce offender behavior needs to be increased as well as the frequency of rewards. A structured reinforcement system should be developed.
The procedure by which offenders are reinforced should be improved so that rewards are
The procedure by which offenders are reinforced should be improved so that rewards are