University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

(USC Thesis Other)

The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 0

Amberroy@usc.edu
November 11, 2018
Amber Oliver, LCSW
Program Proposal: Funding
and Implementation plan
THE BEHAVIOR
CORRECTION UNIT
(BCU)

1
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of my professors at the University of Southern California for
their ability to assist, push and encourage me towards the completion of this degree.

Additionally, I would like to thank my family and friends for being patient with my lack
of involvement with them while I worked diligently towards creating a solution to such
a difficult problem

Finally, I would like to dedicate this proposal to all of the inmates that I came into
contact with during my time in the Special Housing Unit at Auburn Correctional
Facility. They have each inspired my interest in this topic and are deserving of a
program that can help them learn better ways to manage their environments.

2
The BCU Marketing Plan
Executive Summary
Smart Decarceration is one of the 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work and it emphasizes the
need for reform within the criminal justice system. The New York Civil Liberties Union notes that the
effort to reduce the use of solitary confinement mirrors the effort to promote smart decarceration.
(Pendergrass, 2015)
Part of the United States Current Judicial System is the Prison System. The current paradigm
has a goal of incapacitating inmates in order to control the amount of crime in the community.
(Depersis, 2008). Solitary confinement remains a way to keep inmates who are unable to follow prison
rules segregated within the prison walls to ensure the safety (through isolation) of others, inmates and
staff. Solitary confinement is known by many names dependent on state and facility. The United States
Department of Justice uses the term “restrictive housing,” instead of solitary confinement as it is a
more comprehensive term than encompasses the facilities that were included in a recent study. (U.S.
Department of Justice, January 2016) Restrictive housing can be defined as “any type of detention that
removes someone from the general inmate population, voluntarily or involuntarily, and places them in
a locked room or cell, alone or with another inmate, where the inmate has the inability to leave the
room or cell for most of the day, characteristically 22 hours or more.” (U.S. Department of Justice,
January 2016, p.3). For the purposes of this paper the following terms can be used interchangeably to
reflect the above definition: solitary confinement, segregation, segregated confinement, SHU, special
housing unit and restrictive housing.
The perspective is that by removing these inmates from the general population they will be
“incapacitated” and unable to commit more crimes. The problem with this perspective is that it is
aimed at controlling behaviors through segregation from the general population and it removes inmates
from services necessary for behavioral modification. Every day in America 80-100,000 inmates are
held in segregated confinement and lack access to educational and behavioral modification programs.

3
(Baumgartel, 2015). Inmates are removed from programming that can help to change behavior or
teach new skills and thus are more likely to return to segregated confinement during their
incarceration. The challenge is to create a program that addresses this identified need and uses a
framework to identify how much and what type of programming inmates need.
“Our challenge is to develop a proactive, comprehensive, evidence-based “smart decarceration”
strategy that will dramatically reduce the number of people who are imprisoned and enable the nation
to embrace a more effective and just approach to public safety.” ("Promote smart decarceration")
Pendergrass (2015) noted that the effort to decrease the use of solitary confinement echoes the effort to
endorse smart decarceration.
The Behavior Correction Unit is a hybrid prototype that provides group therapy to all inmates
based on criminogenic needs and also uses incentives to engage participants in the program. This
program will cost 1 million dollars in the first year and is expected to be deployed to more than 400
inmates in the first year. The program is developed for proposal to be piloted at Auburn Correctional
Facility in New York State which had an average of 758 admissions per year to SHU from 2007-2011.
(“Library”) The project aims to provide SHU inmates with therapy that will increase their use of use
pro-social coping skills. It also aims to reduce the frequency and duration of SHU use for inmates
enrolled in the program, eventually reducing the overall need for this type of housing because of an
increase in positive behavioral modification. Additionally, the expectation is that inmates will use
information learned to reduce their rate of recidivism and work towards the larger goal of smart
decarceration. The program has a plan to be piloted at Auburn, then modified for use across New York
State in solitary confinement units. It then will be modified for dissemination to general population as
well as other states.
The Behavior Correction Unit focuses on the Grand Challenge on Smart Decarceration with a
focus on changing the prison paradigm. Its approach is that of an inside out framework in that if
recidivism can be reduced within the prison walls it can then be scaled to affect recidivism in the

4
community. It is innovative because it does not focus on eradicating solitary confinement all together
and instead focuses on working within the current system to create positive change.
Grand Challenge of Smart Decarceration
Initiatives to change mental health services, and programs initiated to limit the use of
segregation have been labeled as positive changes within the prison system and stem from recent
legislative attempts to address the epidemic of solitary confinement. (Shames, 2015). Policy changes
to decrease the number of inmates in solitary confinement, improve the environments, and enable
inmates return to general population were publicized or executed in 10 states in 2014. (Shames, 2015).
The current strength of the system is the number of groups advocating for a change. Contrarily, a
challenge remains on how to make effective and purposeful changes. Often legislative changes are
intended to bring about change and increase in quality of life for inmates under confinement but have
additional unforeseen consequences that make it problematic to diminish the use of solitary
confinement in a safe and effective way.
For example, New York state established a mental health disciplinary program in response to a
settlement in 2007 between the Disability Advocates Inc. and the New York State Office of Mental
Health. This settlement was created to afford seriously mentally ill prisoners more out of cell time
while on disciplinary status to attend mental health programming. Additionally, screenings for mental
health of all inmates were revamped to more readily assess the effects of long term confinement on
inmates housed in New York Prison confinement units. (Disability, 2016). In New York, inmates who
are deemed “seriously mentally ill” are transferred to a disciplinary mental health facility if they are
sentenced to more than 30 days SHU confinement. These facilities specialize in confinement and have
additional mental health staff to offer all inmates 4 hours a day of group therapy as well as individual
therapy. The problem with this system is that inmates can receive the designation for a variety of
reasons that are not consistent with the definition of serious mental illness in the community. Within
the prison system, this designation is also given to inmates who engage in serious suicide attempt, as

5
determined by risk management for the psychiatric hospital that oversees all MH facilities across the
state, persistent personality disorder demonstrated with depression or psychosis and self-harm acts,
organic brain syndrome such as traumatic brain injury or lead poisoning that presents with functional
impairments, a mental condition characterized by breaks from reality, or those who have substantially
deteriorated mentally or emotionally while confined in segregated confinement. This initiative has
helped inmates who previously struggled in confinement setting who are accustomed to additional
mental health supports. Adversely, inmates are now willing to take drastic measures to use this
program to their benefit. Inmates will now engage in self-harm or feign mental illness to be afforded
this opportunity for out of cell time in lieu of confinement.
While legislation has brought about change and a shift in paradigm away from traditional
solitary confinement, it has also brought about increased negativity from security staff as their ability
to use punishment to control the prison population has diminished.
The historical political posture on the prison system was to use incarceration to ensure public
safety. Additionally, “the war on drugs” created a perspective in the prison system that was “tough on
crime.” (Patten 2016, P. 85) Patten (2016) described that political posture as paralleling the United
States’ current foreign policy in that both are “extremely proactive in initiating war or sanctions if a
future threat is deemed probable.” (Patten 2016. P, 86) Studies have shown that over three quarters of
inmates who are released from prison reoffend within five years of their release leading to questions
about the effectiveness of the current prison paradigm. (Durose 2014)
To begin the move toward reducing incarceration rates, Matt Epperson and Carrie Pettus-Davis
(2014) began the Smart Decarceration Initative and have spearheaded the movement behind this grand
challenge. (Pettus-Davis 2014) Additionally, Dr. Latessa industrialized a Risk Needs Responsivity
model that is a “framework by which they [practitioners and RNR Scholars] can better study and
understand criminal conduct and the effectiveness of correctional programs.” (Latessa, 2012, p.48) By
creating this model and training practitioners in it he has shown that programming within the prison

6
system needs to take into consideration the level of risk that the offender presents with to reoffend and
match the treatments to that on order to be successful.
In a study from 2011-2012 completed by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics, it was reported that 20% of the prison population and 18% of the jail population reported
spending time in some version of restrictive housing in the previous year. Additionally, one in 10
inmates reported spending more than 30 days in restrictive housing. (Beck, 2015). The study also
determined that Caucasian and Hispanic inmates reported less use of confinement than African-
American and all other races reported. Younger inmates, those 18-19, were more than 3 times as likely
to have spent time in restrictive housing than inmates who were 55 or older. Statistically, Inmates who
reported anxiety/mood disorder or psychological distress were much more likely to spend time in
restrictive housing than inmates who reported no mental illness. Approximately one in five inmates
who reported no mental illness spent time in restrictive housing. Over half of inmates who reported
psychological distress and over three quarters of inmates who reported anxiety/mood disorders
reported spending time in restrictive housing as a part of this study (Beck, 2015)
New York state has the third largest correctional system in the United States and serves over
51,000 inmates in state facilities as well as over 25,000 in local facilities. About seven to eight percent
of these inmates are housed in restrictive housing at any given time which equates to about 3,500
inmates. (O’Donnell, 2016). The number of inmates held in restrictive housing in New York is double
the national average of 4.4% and 40% higher than it was in the early 2000s. (Facts, 2016) In New York
State, African Americans embody 13% of the total population, yet in New York state prisons, African
Americans embody half of the population and 60% of those held in restrictive housing units. (Facts,
2016) New York State has nearly 5000 SHU cells and Auburn Correctional Facility’s racial breakdown
of SHU is reflective of the distribution in SHU’s state wide.

7
New York State Infographic

History of Solitary Confinement
The practice of solitary confinement began at Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
in 1790. At that time Quakers believed that prisoners who were isolated in their cells with only a bible
would use the time to repent and pray in order to find introspection. (Casella and Ridgeway, 2016).
The United States Supreme Court stated in 1890 that this type of confinement led to inmates who were
violently insane, suicidal and “next to impossible to arouse them” leaving them unable to recover and
be contributing members of society. (Gordon, 2014, p.499).
Auburn Correctional Facility has led New York State and the United States in managing
inmates. This facility was first used by inmates in 1817 and housed solitary inmates for the first time in
1821. Eighty-three inmates were classified and placed in solitary confinement at Auburn in 1821.
Within the first year, five inmates died, a number of them became insane including one who jumped to

8
his death in a suicide and one who beat his head against his wall until he permanently damaged one of
his eyes. By 1823, all of the survivors were pardoned by the state. (These Are Your N.Y. State
Correctional Institutions: Auburn Prison, 1949, May). In response to the failed solitary unit, Auburn
Correctional Facility instituted the “Auburn System” which consisted of inmates being employed
during the day in silence and being held in single cells at night, also in silence. The purpose of the
silence was to control inmates and minimize comingling to prevent inmates from plotting with each
other while increasing productivity. (These Are Your N.Y. State Correctional Institutions: Auburn
Prison 1949, June).
The first facility to institute a “permanent lockdown” was Marion Correctional Facility, in
Marion, Illinois, following two separate incidents in the same day in 1983 that resulted in two officers
being murdered. (Richards, 2008). Marion became the first facility to have all inmates confined to
their cells for 23 hours a day, not allowing inmates access to education programming, yard time or
work programming. Several other stats also adopted this type of lockdown within the next few years at
existing facilities. (Richards, 2008).
Federal Judge Thelton Henderson stated that solitary confinement “may well hover on the edge
of what is humanly tolerable,” in 1995. (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995). He also stated that for mentally ill
inmates, “placing them in [solitary confinement] is the mental equivalent of putting an asthmatic in a
place with little air” (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995).
Since the 1970’s, incarceration rate of the United States has rapidly increased from a
population around 200,000 to 1.5 million in 2014. (The Sentencing Project, 2017). Between 1995 and
2005 the use of solitary confinement increased significantly, possibly by 42%. (Shames, 2015). The
Liman Program at Yale Law school surveyed prisons in 2014 for a total number of inmates under some
sort of restrictive housing. Approximately 63% of inmates were in restrictive housing of those facilities
that responded. (Baumgartel, 2015).

9
Current Use Breakdown
The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on the use of
restrictive housing in U.S. Prison and Jails in 2011-2012. Of 91,177 adult inmates nationwide, 20% of
prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates reported spending time in some version of restrictive housing
in the last 12 months. Approximately 10% of all prison inmates and 5% of jail inmates had spent more
than 30 days in restrictive housing. (Beck, 2015) When looking at just prison inmates who were part of
the 2011-2012 study, 17.9% of male inmates reported spending time in restrictive housing in the last
12 months and 20.4% of females reported the same. In terms of racial disparities, 16% of white
inmates, 20.8% of Black/African American inmates, 16% of Hispanic/ Latino inmates and 20.3% of all
other races reported spending time in restrictive housing in the last 12 months. Inmates who are
younger reported higher rates of time in restrictive housing in the last 12 months. Inmates ages 18-19
had the highest rate at 30.9% and inmates 55 or older had the lowest rate at 8.9%. Inmates who had
less than a high school diploma or equivalent had higher rates of prevalence in restrictive housing than
their more educated peers at a rate of 20.5% to 15.1%. Lastly, inmates who identified as lesbian, gay,
or bisexual also reported higher rates, 27.8%, of time in restrictive housing than inmates who identified
as heterosexual, 17.5%. (Beck, 2015). This report also looked at the inmates who reported spending
any time in restrictive housing in the last 12 months by criminal justice status and history. This report
showed that inmates who were incarcerated for violent offenses, not including sex offenses, were
notably more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than inmates incarcerated for other
offenses. Additionally, inmates with prior criminal histories, and/or had spent prior time incarcerated
were more likely to serve time in restrictive housing that inmates who were incarcerated on their first
contact with the criminal justice system. (Beck, 2015).
The Executive Director of Colorado’s Department of Corrections stated that the “real issue”
with the overuse of solitary confinement is the increasing prison population. (Canon,2016) Since the
1970’s the incarceration rate increased from 200,000 inmates to nearly 1.5 million in 2014. (The

10
Sentencing Project, 2017). Because of increasing prison populations, segregated confinement has been
used to control disruptive inmates and behaviors by confining inmates and segregating them from the
general population thus reducing their access to engage in poor behaviors. Ensuring the safety of the
facility and the community is the current goal of disciplinary housing within the prison system. A
study on the development of American prisons and punishment found that there are four goals to the
current American Criminal Justice System: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation.
(Depersis, 2008). This study focused on the idea of incapacitation via incarceration as a crime-control
mechanism. Segregation can also be looked as a way to incapacitate the “trouble makers” within the
prison by isolating them so that they are unable to commit crime. Despite this idea that by removing
inmates from the general population will help deter poor behaviors, inmates continue to engage in
behaviors while housed in these environments. One study found that segregation can be seen as a
“behavioral deep freeze” meaning that inmates return to problematic behavior once removed from the
restrictive environment. (Labrecque, 2015). While this does nod to the “crime-control mechanism” it is
not practical to incarcerate all people who do not follow laws or segregate all inmates who engage in
behaviors that are not allowed within the prison. This setting also does not encourage a change in
behavior in order to avoid future unacceptable behaviors because it is only focused on incapacitation
for a brief time.
As a former social worker at Auburn Correctional Facility, it is easy to see that the current
system of incarceration is not effective at deterring recidivism or crime within the facility. Mental
health providers, specifically social workers, who are immersed in forensic social work must strive to
determine and initiate alternatives that can effectively reeducate criminals on how to be productive
members of society while supporting a safer community. Segregated housing is often used at Auburn
Correctional Facility to help control behaviors that are not appropriate within the prison. Inmates who
are found in violation of the rules for having weapons, or drugs, engaging in violent conduct such as
assaulting other inmates or staff, demonstrating lewd conduct, and threatening others among other

11
things may be faced with serving “time” (days) in the
Special Housing Unit (SHU). This unit provides inmates
three showers a week and an hour of recreation a day out
of their cell in an enclosure. While they can talk to other
inmates housed near them from their own cell or in the
recreation area, they are segregated from the general
population and are not allowed to attend programming
such as Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) or
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (ASAT) that
may have been recommended for their early release-
based on their crime, or mental health groups that the
mental health treatment team has determined they are in
need of. This raises many questions to anyone who studies the efficacy of the current incarceration
system. One of the guiding concepts of this grand challenge is “changing the narrative on
incarceration and the incarcerated.” (Pettus-Davis 2015 P.11) “Historically, currently and formerly
incarcerated individuals have been systematically disenfranchised regarding criminal justice reform
efforts. However, individuals with incarceration histories have firsthand knowledge of the complexities
of criminal justice involvement; therefore, they have unique perspectives on what is necessary to
reduce criminal activity.” (Pettus-Davis 2015 p.12) Often, the leaders of change within the NYS
incarceration system are professionals that have minimal experience working in or with the population.
Proposed Solution- The BCU
The proposed innovative program, The Behavior Correction Unit or BCU, would consist of a
hybrid prototype that integrates incentives with therapeutic programming. Inmates who are housed in
disciplinary housing would be offered out of cell programming that will allow them an opportunity to

12
gain insight into their triggers for criminal behavior and be provided with alternative ways to approach
situations in order to not engage in the same behaviors that brought them to solitary confinement. The
proposed program would assess criminogenic risk factors, mental health needs and cognitive abilities
through the use of the various assessment tools including the Psychopathology Checklist Revised
(PCL-R), psychological evaluation and IQ testing. The PCL-R is scored out of 40 with those above 30
being considered as having psychopathology.
From these assessments, all inmates held in restrictive housing would be offered therapeutic
group programming based on their individual level of need on a continuum, from 2 hours a week to 4
hours a day, providing inmates who are higher risk to reoffend access to the higher doses of treatment
to help change behavior and thought patterns. The amount of group programming offered is based on
the model of Risk Needs Responsivity. “As suggested by its name, it is based on three principles: 1)
the risk principle asserts that criminal behaviour can be reliably predicted and that treatment should
focus on the higher risk offenders; 2) the need principle highlights the importance of criminogenic
needs in the design and delivery of treatment; and 3) the responsivity principle describes how the
treatment should be provided” (Bonta, 2015, p.i). Bonta’s study stated that the average effectiveness of
the Risk Needs Responsivity model was a 30% decrease in reoffending. Dr. Latessa found that high
risk offenders benefited from longer and more intense dosage of supervision and treatment. (Latessa,
2012) Group programming would be offered in the areas of symptom management, substance abuse
recovery, pro-social coping skills, spirituality, communication and others. Additionally, inmates
would earn incentives based on good behavior to help encourage behavioral modifications. For
example, Inmates can be awarded extra phone calls, longer shower time, and more recreation time as
well as recreation items like basketballs. As inmates move through the program with good behavior,
the environment would become less and less restrictive. Inmates would be moved from disciplinary
chairs called “restart” chairs (where an inmate is shackled to the floor unable to move about the room
freely) to standard group room chairs. The individual’s cells will also become less restrictive until it is

13
similar to a general population cell. The program would also allow for regression when an inmate
displays poor behavior. Instead of lengthening solitary sentences, they would be afforded alternative
programming and would lose privileges gained.
Inmates will be assigned their amount of overall group hours based on a sliding scale in each of
the following areas: mental health, education, vocation, and criminogenic risk. Mental health,
education and vocational will all have a scale from one to four hours per week with criminogenic risk
accounting for one to eight hours per week.
Each person regardless of need will be afforded
at minimum 4 hours a week of out of cell group
therapy programming. Inmates who have the
most need will receive up to twenty hours per
week of out of cell group therapy programming.
Criminogenic Risk Factors and Applicable Group Offerings

Paradigm Shift

14
The American Criminal Justice System currently has four goals: retribution, deterrence,
rehabilitation and incapacitation. (Depersis, 2008). Incapacitation is used as a tactic to control crime
both in the community and in prison. Segregation from general population is a way to incapacitate
inmates who are engaging in criminal behavior and behaviors that are against the rules of the prison.
The goal is that by isolating inmates from the general population they will be unable to engage in these
negative behaviors.
The American Civil Liberties Union stated that “There is little evidence or research about the
goals, impacts or cost-effectiveness of solitary confinement as a corrections tool. In fact, there is no
evidence that using solitary confinement or supermax institutions have significantly reduced the levels
of violence in prison or that such confinement acts as a deterrent.” (American Civil Liberties Union,
2014, p. 9)
One study found that segregation can be considered a “behavioral deep freeze” in that inmates
return to problematic behavior as soon as they are placed back in general population and that
segregation is not effective in deterring poor behaviors. (Labrecque, 2015). While this does support
incapacitation as a way to control crime, it is not practical or feasible to segregate all inmates who
engages in poor behaviors within the prison. Segregated confinement can have lasting effects on
inmates including higher rates of diagnosed mental or behavioral health problems in comparison to the
general population. (Kapoor and Trestman, 2016).
The goal of the Behavior Correction Unit is to change the current prison paradigm and to shift
it towards a more rehabilitative model.
Mission and Vision Statements
The mission of the Behavior Correction Unit is to provide a range of behavioral health services
for adult males incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility in the Special Housing Unit under
confinement status in order to facilitate behavioral modification.

15
The Behavior Correction Unit envisions a future where inmates under confinement have access
to supports and services that fosters positive change and self-determination. Once the BCU has been
shown to be effective, the goal is to have this program implemented in all correctional facilities in New
York and to be used as a framework for implementation in others states as well. This program most
likely will have to be modified slightly to accommodate differences in facility layouts and state laws
Some stakeholders will be encouraged by the proposed program. These stakeholders include:
inmates, their families, advocacy groups and some community members. Stakeholders who are
attempting to shift the paradigm and are frustrated with the current state of the prison system will be
encouraged by the changes being made to assist inmates in changing behaviors in order to be more
effective members of society when the return to the community.
Other stakeholders who are responsible for the funding and management of the prison
population will be less inclined to support this program. Historically, the prison system has been
reactionary in nature, only changing things that new laws/lawsuits require. Members of local and state
governments often do not focus on prison reform as inmates are not able to be a part of their
“constituency” due to their inability to vote. Additionally, these groups will be opposed to allocating
money for a program that is new and not required. It will be essential that the proposal be pitched to
these groups in a way that shows how this can positively affect the community and their constituents.
Additionally, Unions who represent staff who will work in this program will need to be given the
information on how this will affect their members in a positive way, particularly by giving examples of
previous programs that have been proven effective. By providing examples and follow up data on
efficacy, these stakeholders will be encouraged to see the positive impact of the proposed program.
Primary research was completed to get initial thoughts and feedback for the Behavior
Correction Unit as well as to receive contextual data on social norms related prison that affect the
ability to shift the current paradigm. These outcomes can be viewed in appendix one.

16
Some promising interfaces with other systems include the ability to network programming with
a variety of other systems to provide access to additional ways to encourage and promote change. For
example, inmates held in SHU could be afforded the ability to attend religious programming which
they currently have no access to. Coordination with the family and foster care system could provide an
avenue for inmates held on this status to connect with children and family members so that they can be
included in the model for change.
The BCU Logic Model
The BCU would consist of five phases.
Inputs
• Social workers,
Security Staff,
Inmates, Building
remodel to
accomodate
security needs
Activities
• developing
curriculum for
criminogenic
needs, behavioral
modification,
providing a group
space for SHU
inmates
• providing
assessments
Outputs
• Assessments of
needs
• Group Therapy
for all SHU
inmates based on
level of
criminogenic risk
Outcomes
• SHU inmates show
behavioral
modification and use
pro-social coping
skills
Impacts
• Inmates enrolled
reduce the frequency
and duration of SHU
use and reduce the
overall need for this
type of housing

17
Market Analysis
Lawsuits have historically been implemented to resolve the problem of solitary confinement. A
settlement from a 2007 lawsuit between Disability Advocates Inc. and New York State required that
inmates who were designated as seriously mentally ill be moved to disciplinary mental health
programs if they were required to serve more than thirty days of segregation. These inmates are then
afforded four hours a day of mental health programming to reduce the strain of solitary confinement on
mental illness. (Disability, 2016). New York Civil Liberties Union also filed a federal lawsuit against
the state in 2012 to challenge the policies and practices that governed solitary confinement which
resulted in the removal of the nutraloaf (a bread/meatloaf like substance that contains all of a meals
required nutrients) as a form of discipline and standards for the amount of time an inmate can serve for
a specific offence. (Historic Settlement Overhauls Solitary Confinement in New York, n.d.) The
United States Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings to review the use of solitary confinement
nationwide in 2012 and 2014. (Criminal Justice Reform Initiative Archives, n.d.).
In 2014, Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and
Wisconsin publicized or executed policy changes to reduce the number of people held in SHU,
advance the conditions, and enable the return of inmates to the general population. (Shames, 2015).
 Arizona -provided inmates with mental illness more access to services and more out of
cell time while housed in solitary confinement.
 California -introduced new regulations about which inmates can be housed in solitary
and made a pilot program that focused on releasing inmates to general population
permeant.
 Colorado -reduced the number of inmates being held under this status by two thirds
while also reducing the number of reasons an inmate can be housing in solitary.
 Indiana -reduced the number of juvenile inmates held in solitary from forty-eight to ten
and the length of stay was reduced to a maximum of twenty-four hours.
 Nebraska -16 recommendations were made by a bipartisan legislative committee to
significantly reduce the use of solitary and to remove the mentally ill and cognitively
impaired from this type of confinement.
 New Mexico -a workgroup led by The Vera Institute aimed to reduce the reliance on
solitary confinement and encouraged the use of alternative types of discipline as well as

18
implementing social programming for those inmates who remained in solitary
confinement.
 New York State -banned the use of solitary confinement for juveniles.
 Ohio -reached an agreement with the United States Department of Justice to reduce and
eventually eliminate the duration and frequency of confinement.
 Wisconsin -the Corrections Secretary outlined his vision for reform that included
proposing and implementing new rules for solitary confinement. (Hager, 2014)
Current programs that have been found to be effective alternatives to solitary confinement are
Alger Correctional Facility in Michigan and Grendon Prison in Great Britain. These programs have
been effective at decreasing the duration and changing the traditional use of solitary confinement.
Alger Correctional Facility instituted a six-step program that is incentive based and rewards
good behavior with reduction in duration, additional amenities and more contact with family. Inmates
are also able to lose these privileges with poor behavior. This system was compared to parental
discipline and treats inmates with respectful but firm and consistent correction. (Chammah, 2016).
Chammah (2016) noted that those who led this initiative felt that the paradigm of solitary increased
resistance and vengeance and that the new program was able to incentivize good behavior.
An alternative to the use of solitary confinement was instituted in Great Britain at Grendon
Prison where a therapeutic community was established for inmates. (Davies, 2008) This community
was voluntary and focused on challenging the inmates’ behavior. The therapeutic community consisted
of 187 male inmates, most of whom were serving life sentences and approximately a third of whom
scored high on psychopathy tests. The community offered group programming and left inmates in
charge of managing problematic behaviors through the use of “wing meetings.” These meetings
empowered inmates to take ownership of the community and provided opportunities where grievances
with each other could be aired and where the community would vote on if that particular inmate could
remain in the community. Group therapy focused on identifying triggers for criminal behavior and
forced inmates to confront their past with peers challenging inmates to be honest and to transform.
Individual therapy is never offered. (Davies, 2008) Davies (2008) reported that the model had reduced

19
the chance for reoffending, reduced the number of assaults, and inmates were less likely to engage in
drug use and self-harm compared to other facilities in the United Kingdom.
Recently, a coalition of organizations and movement leaders began the “Unlock the Box: The
National Campaign to end Solitary Confinement. (Unlock the Box. (n.d.)).” This campaign is based
around providing partnerships with state and local campaigns that are working to end the use of
solitary confinement. The campaign is working to achieve this goal by providing funding, resources
and technical assistance to and new or established anti-solitary campaigns. The problem with the
Unlock the Box Campaign is that funding requests are by invitation only currently and that it is only
targeting the complete eradication of solitary confinement. It does not take into consideration the
security implications that go along with this.
A few other recent initiatives to affect change on the grand challenge of smart decarceration
include the Senate Bill 2724 Solitary Confinement Reform Act which laws out rules and regulations
about the use of solitary confinement in federal prisons and outlines policies that require out of cell
programming. In Colorado, an initiative that has limited the maximum sentence in Restrictive Housing
to 15 days and has called for four hours of out of cell programing using custom restraint tables has
been implemented. (The Association of State Correctional Administrators, and The Liman Center for
Public Interest Law, 2018) This initiative has led to the closing of one supermax and the repurposing of
another in that state. Finally, In Washington State, an innovation that is a 9 month Intensive
Transitional Program that integrates coursework and increasing freedoms has led to an overall decrease
in violence within the instiution (Babb, L. 2016)
The prison market in America currently lacks rehabilitative elements and instead focuses on
punishment and control. At Auburn Correctional Facility specifically, and inmate is removed from
aggression replacement therapy, substance abuse therapy and mental health group therapy upon
admission to SHU. If an inmate does not qualify, does not have a serious mental illness, they then have
to go to great lengths to gain this designation if they want out of cell program during their disciplinary

20
time. The BCU initiative addresses the inmates goal for less time confined and more access to
programming while also addressing the purpose of making the facility and community safer. Unlike
the Unlock the Box campaign, The BCU takes a meet in the middle approach to innovation and reform
where security standards can still be upheld but programming towards changing mindsets is also
provided. By teaching pro-social skills, inmates have the opportunity to apply these skills both in the
facility and once they are released to minimize or eliminate their need for engaging in criminal
activity. The BCU brings consequences and aid to the same inmate instead of one or the other. The
inmates in this program are still confined based on disciplinary housing laws but as then afforded ways
to change their mindset and ways in order to avoid readmission in the future.
Unique value proposition
The BCU is unique in that it is being offered to all inmates housed in disciplinary housing.
Currently in New York State, alternatives to SHU housing are only offered to seriously mentally ill
patients or inmates who are cognitively impaired. When looking at alternatives across the country and
world, initiatives are built to focus on incentives only or group therapy only. Most innovations and
campaigns for reform don’t take into consideration the true need for “Custody and control.” By
avoiding this, these initiatives alienate a major stakeholder in the problem because security staff feel
like they are no longer able to be effective in their jobs, keep the facility safe and keep themselves safe.
Often, Officers at Auburn Correctional Facility would talk about how their “Tools” for controlling
behavior are being taken away by progressive legislation and that there was no alternative offered to
help manage unacceptable behaviors which made their prison less safe for everyone from their point of
view. The BCU brings these ideas together in the hope of truly changing the focus of disciplinary
housing. Disciplinary housing needs to be used for behavioral modification not behavioral
containment. By containing behaviors for a time, inmates return to the general population and the
community with the same set of maladaptive behaviors. The BCU provides inmates an opportunity to
learn new skills to avoid return to SHU housing and return to incarceration.

21
Implementation Plan
Structure
The BCU will be staffed by three social workers, one psychologist, one unit coordinator and
four correctional staff members. Social workers will be responsible for intake assessments, and
facilitation of individual and group therapy. The psychologist will be responsible for administering risk
assessments and determining level of need. The unit coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that
the program runs efficiently and that inmates are assigned to appropriate groups. The four correctional
staff members will include four correctional officers and one Sergeant who will be responsible for
transporting inmates to programming and escorting staff to assess inmates as needed.
Processes
The program proposes that inmates will receive risk assessments as a follow up from their
intake appointment and within the 14-day window. When inmates are moved to SHU in New York, the
requirement is that they see mental health the next business day and again within 14 calendar days.
Following this, the Unit Coordinator will have three business days to review the risk assessment,
disciplinary record of the inmate, and assign them to the proper amount and type of group therapy. The
program is modeled after the Risk Needs Responsivity model which was found to decrease the
propensity to reoffend by 30%. (Bonta, 2015) This model will be used as a way to assess inmates’
level of programming related to the level of their risk to reoffend. Inmates with higher risk assessments
will be afforded more group programming than inmates with low risk. Group programming will be
offered in a variety of topics including but not limited to: mental health, substance abuse, education,
aggression replacement, and criminogenic thinking. Inmates on the mental health caseload are
currently discussed bi-monthly at a Joint Commission Management Committee to assess their mental
health needs and assign time cuts for good behavior. This meeting will include all SHU inmates after
the program begins and will focus on status in the program, compliance with prescribed treatment.

22
Incentives will be awarded based on inmate performance. Finally, following an inmate’s removal from
segregated confinement, follow up data will be collected quarterly for two years and will report on:
new disciplinary tickets received, any additional time spent in solitary, mental health treatment
progress if applicable and client satisfaction. This follow up data may require collaboration with
community resources and parole/probation as not all inmates will remain incarcerated for the duration
of the longitudinal study.
The BCU consists of 5 phases.
In Phase I- Assessment, inmates will be assessed using the PCL-R, Psychological Evaluation
and IQ testing if not already completed within their first 14 days of being housed in the SHU. Phase II-
Enrollment and Engagement consists of inmates being enrolled in group programming as prescribed
based on their assessments and will be encouraged to attend groups and engage in behavior
modification. This phase should last between day 14 to day 30. Phase III- Progression (Evidence of
Behavior Modification) lasts from day 30 till 1 week before their expected release from SHU. The goal
is for all inmates to strive to attain this phase. This phase is noted by gaining incentives such as less

Phase I- Assessment

Inmates will be assessed using the PCL-R, Psychological Evaluation and IQ testing if not already completed within their first 14
days of being housing the SHU.

Phase II- Enrollment and Engagement

During this phase, inmates will be enrolled in group programming as prescribed based on their assessments and will be
encouraged to attend groups and engage in behavior modification. This phase should last between day 14 to day 30.

Phase III- Progression (Evidence of Behavior Modification)

From day 30 till 1 week before their expected release from SHU, inmates should reach to attain this phase. This phase is noted
by gaining incentives such as less restrictive group environments and increase in pro-social coping skills. During this phase, an
inmate can regress to Phase II if poor behaviors reemerge or continue.

Phase IV- Termination

Termination will consist of the inmate’s final week in SHU placement. During this, Inmates will be afforded an opportunity to
share what they have learned in groups and provide feedback to the staff as well as provide peer support for other group
members who will remain in SHU after they leave.

Phase V- Follow-Up Data Collection

Inmates will be followed for 5 years following their release from SHU. For the first year, Inmates will be tracked quarterly to
determine if they have received new disciplinary tickets, returned to SHU housing, or made additional progress. Inmates will be
afforded an opportunity to give feedback on their experience and its helpfulness at the 6-month mark. Following this, inmates
will be tracked yearly for 5 years again to determine new disciplinary tickets or charges, return to SHU, or progress maintained.

23
restrictive group environments and increase in pro-social coping
skills. During this phase, an inmate can regress to Phase II if
poor behaviors reemerge or continue. Phase IV- Termination
will consist of the inmate’s final week in SHU placement.
During this, Inmates will be afforded an opportunity to share
what they have learned in groups and provide feedback to the
staff as well as provide peer support for other group members
who will remain in SHU after they leave. Finally, Phase V-
Follow-Up Data Collection consists of inmates being followed
statistically for 5 years following their release from SHU. For
the first year, Inmates will be tracked quarterly to determine if
they have received new disciplinary tickets, returned to SHU housing, or made additional progress.
Inmates will be afforded an opportunity to give feedback on their experience and its helpfulness at the
6-month mark. Following this, inmates will be tracked yearly for 5 years again to determine new
disciplinary tickets or charges, return to SHU, or progress maintained.
Initially, all inmates will be enrolled in phase one to start up the project, then inmates will
enroll in phase one as they arrive to SHU throughout the implementation year. This means that at any
given time after the first month or two inmates will all be at different places in the phase continuum
based on their admission date and sanctions.
Stakeholder Incentives
Inmates will be incentivized to attend programming with time cuts will be more readily offered
to inmates who are engaging in the program and showing positive results through sustained good
behavior. Staff will be incentivized with additional opportunities to attend training related to group
programming away from the facility. Additionally, social workers will be able to engage in more
consistent therapy with all inmates in lieu of the current brief supportive therapy that is offered. Social

24
workers for this program should be well versed in group therapy dynamics and have an eagerness to
think creatively about treatment with this population. Security staff for this program should have
progressive thinking and be open to shifting the paradigm of prison.
People
The author of this project intends to lead the initiative to institute this program as well as fill
the Unit Coordinator role in order ensure that staff are given guidance on shifting the paradigm.
Management for the program will be under the auspices of the facility management team and the
Office of Mental Health management team. These groups will ensure that polices are adhered to and
program effectiveness is maintained. Followership will include inmates enrolled in the program, staff
engaged in running the program as well as advocacy groups that are working to shift the current
paradigm on solitary confinement.
Stakeholders that have invested interest in what the prison system is accomplishing include
those who are incarcerated, their families, state and local governments and community members. The
current paradigm of prison effects everyone as tax money is used, former inmates are released back to
the communities they were from prior to incarceration, counties with prisons rely on income streams
and staff that work in or around the prison system rely on it for employment.
New York State Correctional Officer and Police Benevolent Association (NYSCOPBA.) is the
officer’s union in New York State and often advocates for improved disciplinary actions for behaviors
that are unacceptable and a threat to officer’s safety. This group among others are adversarial to
changing how solitary is used. Currently, the movement is towards less “use of force” and less use of
segregated housing because of lawsuits and complaints from advocacy groups. This leaves correctional
staff and unions concerned about the safety of civilian and correctional staff within the facility.
Additionally, these groups are concerned about job security because current confinement settings
require additional staff to manage. For example, inmates in SHU are escorted by two officers at a time
when in general population if an inmate is serving disciplinary they are escorted by only one officer.

25
Implementation Plan
The planning phase for the BCU will take approximately one year and will include creating
financial plans, ted talks and other materials necessary to propose the project to the state of New York.
The research phase will consist of identifying who the program needs to be pitched to and how. It will
also include getting the approval to implement. In the design phase, staff will be hired and group
programming will be created and outlined for future use. The advocacy phase will the “SHU-In
Rehabilitation Campaign.” The implementation phase will include inmate enrollment and the
beginning of group therapy. The follow up phase will begin 60 days after the program is implemented.
Gantt Chart
SHU-In Rehabilitation Advocacy Plan
“SHU-In Rehabilitation” is a campaign to shift the prison paradigm from incapacitative to
rehabilitative. SHU stands for Special Housing Unit and is the term used for solitary confinement in
New York State. The mission of the campaign is to educate and support legislative representatives, as
well as leaders of agencies that directly impact the policy of prisons in the United States on the need
for and implementation of this paradigm shift. The goal of the campaign is to shift the entirety of the
way prisons are used in America by starting with the use of Solitary Confinement. The Campaign
hopes to get the support of Kweisi Mfume, former US Representative for Maryland as well as former

26
President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (MFUME,
n.d.).
Kweisi Mfume would be a powerful voice for this campaign. “Mfume's story is one of success
against steep odds: He described himself as a high school dropout born into poverty whose mother died
when he was 16, who was at times homeless and was arrested 13 times as a gang member before he
"miraculously found himself." (NAACP chief Mfume resigns. n.d.).” His history and story of success
shows that inmates are not a hopeless population and can become valuable members of society that can
have lasting positive impacts. Mfume was able to turn his life around and go on to advocate for urban
economic change. The campaign would task Mfume with speaking directly to those in legislative
positions as well as leadership positions. He is history as a member of the House of Representatives
and the President of the NAACP provides him the clout and credibility to speak directly to this target
group.
Additionally, Mfume will be able to be featured in a brief video that will be used in shifting the
attitudes of those who would implement these changes. His story provides a personal reference that is
relatable to many. The video would look at what his life would have looked like if he had not turned
his life around and would discount the effects he has had as a well–known voice on Baltimore–area
radio, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the leader of one of the country's
oldest advocacy groups for African Americans, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) (MFUME, n.d.).”
The campaign would also provide small advertisements with the ideas that “if rehabilitation
didn’t happen… this wouldn’t have either.” The goal here is to invoke the emotions of the viewer and
to engage them in a thought-provoking moment about the potential of all inmates currently housed in
prison. These small advertisements would be used on social media in order to start a grass roots
movement towards advocating for these changes. While Mfume will speak to the primary target group

27
(legislators and leaders), social media will speak to the secondary target group of the community which
can impact the primary group through voting, and advocating.
Evaluating Effectiveness
Members of local and state governments often do not focus on prison reform as inmates are not
able to be a part of their “constituency” due to their inability to vote. It will be important during
implementation to educate legislators on the relevance of this initiative to their constituency- the
community. This is where the follow up data comes into the picture. This data will help provide
legislators with tangible information that the program is reducing recidivism within the facility and has
the potential to create a safer community. Having MH staff and security staff a part of the exploration
and preparation phases will encourage them to be directly involved in the success of implementation.
They will be vested in the process of success and will have insights on how to modify the program if
needed as implementation occurs. The current prison paradigm is set up in a way that rehabilitation is
not the current focus and shifting this will be a huge task and a barrier to successful implementation if
it does not occur. The program is modeled after the Risk Needs Responsivity model which was found
decrease the propensity to reoffend by 30%. (Bonta, 2015) The fact that this model has been proved to
reduce reoffending and is based on an Evidence Based Practices will help with implementation as
clinicians and security staff will be more likely to “buy in” to a proven idea. All stakeholders want a
reduction in reoffending a violence. So in this, staff and stakeholders alike will be vested in the success
of implementation.
Implementation will be evaluated two ways. First the outcomes will be evaluated based on the
target goal of the program. The goal is to reduce the use of solitary confinement. If the program is
successful, inmates will increase the duration between SHU admissions and decrease the number of
SHU admissions. This data will be tracked as part of the follow up phase. Additionally, inmates will
complete surveys to ensure that their perceived needs are being taken into consideration when looking
at group topics and materials. Historically, inmates’ opinions have not been taken in to consideration

28
when developing programs within the prison system. The leads to inmates being disengaged in the
programming. Surveys will allow inmates to have a voice and will work to encourage program
compliance. It will also be important to have regular team meetings to discuss fidelity and program
concerns as they arise. This will allow for regular monitoring of the implementation and its
effectiveness by leadership staff. These meetings should focus on: are assessments being completed
timely, feedback on group manuals, and are inmates placed in the correct groups. Additionally, it
should look at concerns from staff and inmates in relation to logistics as well as concerns if they arise
about program outcomes and unintended outcomes.
The second evaluation of
the implementation is in terms of
sustainability. For the
implementation of this idea to be
successful long term, it's
imperative that it can be replicated
with positive results in all SHU
facilities in New York State. After
the pilot has been proven
successful, the same
implementation plan will be
utilized to modify the program to
new buildings and staff. After
this, the process needs to begin
again and look at viability to
provide this type of programming
to all inmates in a facility, not just those in solitary confinement. Once, the program is able to be

29
modified for use in the whole prison and has been shown successful in reducing recidivism it will have
accomplished its goal of promoting smart decarceration. In order for decarceration to be smart, it needs
to reduce the prison population while rehabilitating those currently incarcerated to reduce reoffending.
Financial Plan
The BCU will be housed at Auburn Correctional Facility which is a state-run facility. All staff
and programs are funding through the state’s budgets for the Office of Mental Health and Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision. The BCU will require a one-million-dollar budget in the
first year and will fund renovations to the facility as well as additional staff. This money will be
allocated to the program from the New York State budget as approved by the Governor and controlled
by The Office of Mental Health.
In order to effectively run the program for the first year, the state will need to allocate new
budget line items for additional staffing. This can be done through repurposing of overstaffed Mental
Health programs elsewhere at Auburn Correctional Facility. Ideally, 2 additional social workers who
are paid at Grade 20 with a base pay of $60,290, one additional DOCCS Sargent paid at Grade 17 with
a base pay of $57,348 and 4 additional Correctional Officers paid at grade 14 with a base pay of
$48,889. Additionally, some training and materials will need to be provided to new staff. (Department
of Civil Service)
While it is difficult to ascertain how much the state will provide for funding this program, it is
reasonable to compare it to similar initiatives. The Office of Mental Health currently funds a different
SHU alternative called the Residential Mental Health Unit. It was first opened in 2009 with 28 Full
time Equivalent positions and was funded at a cost of three million annually. (Office of Mental Health,
n.d.) This program will be much smaller and can be efficiently run on a budget of one million dollars
annually. The program will support 8 full time equivalent positions.
Budget Format and Cycle

30
The BCU will use a line item budget that runs from April 1 to March 31 in line with the New
York State budget. The budget for the BCU will be incorporated in the budget for The Office of
Mental Health.
Revenue Projections
The projected revenue for the BCU’s first full year of operation is one million dollars allocated
to the program from the New York State budget as approved by the Governor and controlled by The
Office of Mental Health.
Staffing Plans & Costs
The housing unit that would be transformed to The BCU currently staffs one social worker. The
BCU will fund two additional social workers. Together, the three social workers will be responsible for
assessments, individual therapy and group therapy on a rotating schedule. Social workers will be
assigned cases at intake and be responsible for their assessments and individual therapy. Additionally,
these three social workers will be responsible for all of the group therapy programming for the BCU.
A DOCCS Sergeant and four additional Correctional Officers will be funded through this program to
assist with inmate movement to and from group therapy. This is necessary to not interrupt the current
flow of work in the SHU housing unit as the current DOCCS staff are responsible for taking inmates to
appointments with medical, taking inmates to recreation, providing therapy and transporting to
hearings. The current staff is also responsible for handing out the meals 3 times a day. By adding these
additional staff, the current staff can focus on their current jobs while the new staff focus exclusively
on making the BCU run efficiently.
Between year 1 and year 2 there is the capability to add two additional staff- one secretary to
assist with paperwork and data entry as data collection will have begun and one additional social
worker to assist with assessments, individual therapy and group therapy. The BCU expects that as
more inmates engage in the program, more staff will be necessary to run it efficiently and to prevent
staff burnout. Staff will be paid based on their salary grade and years of service. The base pay for the

31
first-year staff are: Social workers-$60,290, DOCCS Sergeant-$57,348, and Correctional Officers-
$48,889.
Other Spending Plans & Costs
Startup costs for the BCU will need to include some facility renovations so that group rooms
can be outfitted with “restart chairs.” Additionally, equipment and office space will need to be
purchased and created for incoming staff. The estimated costs of these upgrades is $155,000. Restart
chairs are sold at a base price of $1,795.00 and the estimated amount for 30 chairs is $53,850. Desks
are sold at $390 each. All new equipment will be purchased and provided by Corcraft which is the
Department of Corrections, Division of Industry. In addition to these two items, computer and office
materials will need to be purchased for new social workers.
Training costs have also been included in the budget for a total of $12,000. This will provide
new social workers with the training necessary to complete assessments, provide targeted group
therapy. Overhead costs are allocated at $10,000 per FTE and include ongoing office supplies and
expenses. This line item will also cover expenses incurred by Central New York Psychiatric Center
who will maintain the distribution of budget money and payroll.
Impact on the Grand Challenge: Measuring Success

Year 1 Year 2 Rational
Revenue

Government
Allocation $1,000,000 $1,100,000 Initial budget of one million, increased to 1.1 million in Year 2 to accommodate additional staff

Total Revenue $1,000,000 $1,100,000

Expenses 8 FTEs 10 FTEs

Staff salaries and
wages $750,000 $970,000
Increase of two staff in Year 2. Staff are budgeted at $93,750 to accommodate salaries, and
additional benefits. With a slight increase for Year 2 to account for raises.
Facility upgrades $155,000 $15,000
Initial budget for major upgrades including restart chairs and office space. Continuing budget item
for upgrades to group rooms and office space as necessary
Overhead Costs $80,000 $100,000 Overhead costs of $10,000 per FTE staff
Training $12,000 $12,000 Yearly training provided to staff
Group Materials $2,000 $2,000 Group workbooks and material for programming
Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 Incentives, additional unexpected or unplanned costs

Total Expenses $1,000,000 $1,100,000

Loss/ Surplus $0 $0 Break Even Budget

32
While this program may not initially reduce the use of solitary confinement, it may encourage
inmates to learn new skills to help them avoid behaviors that lead to solitary confinement. The desired
outcome would be an increase in inmate use of pro social skills as evidenced by decreased disciplinary
infractions. The long-term study of this prototype would also look at prison outcomes in relation to
probability of returning to prison within 5 years of release. The hope is that by teaching inmate’s skills
to help avoid SHU placement they may also use these to avoid prison placement once they return to the
community.
The most complicating factor in the budget proposal for the BCU, is that the BCU is a
government funded and run program. This means that the state government needs to be in agreement
about the need for such a program and have a willingness to pay for it. Historically, legislative action
would force programs into existence in New York state. With the BCU, it will be marketed as a
program that will deter the need for future legislation and be a cost savings to the state government.
The government is aware of the costs of incarceration and solitary confinement and historically has not
had a problem paying for that. The difficulty lies in paying for programs that are aimed at
rehabilitation when the consumers of the program will not be potential voters upon their release from
incarceration. Additionally, a constraint of the program is that the concept of rehabilitation, or the
possibility of such, in the solitary confinement setting will need to coexist with the current paradigm of
prison that is focused on incapacitation. This constraint will make it difficult to get engagement from
staff and inmates enrolled in the program because right before and right after their participation in the
program they are immersed in an environment that is not conducive to rehabilitation. This could affect
the efficacy of the skills learned as they will be difficult to use by inmates once returned to the general
population of the facility. In general population, inmates have to at time align with gang activity in
order to remain safe related to their crime, addiction or history. Gang activity is a social norm within
the population and it competes with the idea of acting in a pro-social way. While inmates may want to

33
choose to be not involved in these activities, they may be placed in a role that does not allow them this
choice unless they are willing to risk their safety for not getting involved.
The BCU will not provide revenue for the state and will cost the state just over one million a
year to run at one facility alone. It will be imperative to use the data gained to prove the continued
need for this spending in terms of reducing inmate misconduct and the potential reduction of
recidivism. If this data can be provided and proven, the state would see the benefit of this program and
its implementation at all other facilities across the state.
One alternative way to implement this initiative that has some cost saving benefits is to provide
the group therapy in cell on tablets. While New York State has been able to implement new
programming that requires an increase in staff, this alternative is a great suggestion for those who may
be reluctant to approve this. This does not provide out of cell time but can provide a continued
opportunity to learn new skills to inmates. It also will assist inmates in finding productive ways to
spend 23 hours in their cells. They can be busy with asynchronous work, homework and synchronous
sessions. During synchronous sessions, held on a platform similar to the virtual academic center used
by the University of Southern California, inmates will be live with an instructor and other peers. This
allows for live conversations and learning experiences. It also reduces the security concerns about
moving disciplinary inmates to another location for a brief time. This type of implementation would
require more work upfront to develop the curriculum but would cost less after implementation as less
staff would be required to manage it. Some concerns that could arise from the use of technology are
the potentials for the technology to be abused and misused. New York State is currently testing a
program for tablet use in SHU facilities but long term outcomes on effectiveness have not been
gathered yet.

34
Current and Next Steps
While this program may not initially reduce the use of solitary confinement, it may encourage
inmates to learn new skills to help them avoid behaviors that lead to solitary confinement. The desired
outcome would be an increase in inmate use of pro social skills as evidenced by decreased disciplinary
infractions. The long-term study of this prototype would also look at prison outcomes in relation to
probability of returning to prison within 5 years of release. The hope is that by teaching inmate’s skills
to help avoid SHU placement they may also use these to avoid prison placement once they return to the
community.
The BCU is feasible from an implementation standpoint because it is modeled after current
initiatives in New York State. The key to the programs sustainability and growth will be the ability to
show the return on investment in terms of overall reduction in violence and unlawful behaviors. The
program’s success in the piolet stage will be crucial in iterating the program to then be implanted at all
state facilities in the state. Once the BCU concept has been show affective in reducing institutional
violence and misconduct it can then be iterated again to be generalized to the entire prison population
and not just those in solitary. This iteration will then provide the foundation for the BCU concept being
disseminated nationally and internationally.
It is also important to look at the return on investment. The Council of Economic Advisors
found that “on average, programs that address the prisoner’s mental health or substance abuse
problems may reduce the cost of crime by about $0.92 to $3.31 per taxpayer dollar spent on prison
reform and long-run incarceration costs by $0.55 to $1.96, for a total return of $1.47 to $5.27 per
taxpayer dollar.(Council of Economic Advisors, 2018, p.1)” This translates to a beak even rate of two
percent reduction in recidivism. If the BCU can prove better that five percent reduction in recidivism
the cost will be justified.

35
The initial next steps towards implementation of the piolet that is proposed for Auburn CF will
be to partner with the New York Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights of New York as well as
getting financial and ideological buy-in from the state agencies that will be directly charged with
implementation. This will happen through the use of the advocacy campaign, direct campaigning of
legislative representatives and direct mailing of materials to stakeholders.
The BCU has been presented to various stakeholders including mental health and security staff
at Auburn CF. The BCU is working with the offices of Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Richard
Durbin to discuss the possibility of this piolet being implemented either in New York as proposed or in
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Additionally, The BCU has proposed the program elements to Dr.
Edward Latessa, the leader in risk needs responsivity modeling, for his review as well as Stephanie
Welch who is the Executive Officer for the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health.
The BCU will need to be presented in a way that all stakeholders agree about the need and
purpose of the program. The BCU will find success when everyone who comes into contact with the
program is invested in the program’s success. It will be imperative to use the data gained to prove the
continued need for this spending in terms of reducing inmate misconduct and the potential reduction of
recidivism. If this data can be provided and proven, the state would see the benefit of this program and
its implementation at all other facilities across the state. It is important to explain to stakeholders that
this initiative in innovative because it focuses on an “inside out” approach working to use confinement
as a controlled environment to encourage change in behaviors. Additionally, it is innovative in that it
implements all types of rehabilitation into one program in lieu of focusing on a specific population or a
specific need set. The BCU is a creative way to change the way we currently use prison time without
having to change the criminal justice system from a sentencing standpoint.

36
Sources
American Civil Liberties Union. (2014). The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the
United States. ACLU Briefing Paper.
Babb, Lesley. (2016). Complicated Confinement: Exploring Modifications to Solitary Confinement
Practices in Adult Correctional Facilities. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University
repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/555
Baumgartel, S., Guilmette, C. , Kalb, J., Li, D., Nuni, J. ,Porter, D. E. & Resnik, J. (2015). Time-In-
Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of
Administrative Segregation in Prison. Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 552.
Beck, A.J. (2015). Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails, 2011-12. U.S. Department of
Justice. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2015). Risk-need-responsivity model for
offender assessment and rehabilitation 2007-06. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspxLatessa 2012
Canon,G. (2016). Ending Inmate Isolation: Inside the Battle to Stop Solitary Confinement
in America. A Medium Corporation.
Casella, J., & Ridgeway, J. (2016, February 11). A Brief History of Solitary Confinement.
Retrieved August 20, 2017, from https://longreads.com/2016/02/09/a-brief-history-of-
solitary-confinement/Criminal Justice Reform Initiative Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved February
07, 2017, from https://judiciary.house.gov/issue/criminal-justice-reform-initiative/
Chammah, M. (2016). How to Get Out of Solitary - One Step at a Time.
Retrieved February 7, 2017, from https://www.themarshallproject.org
/2016/01/07/how-to-get-out-of-solitary-one-step-at-a-time#.X8D0oLaBM

37
Davies, R. (2008, August 22). Grendon Prison: a model for therapeutic care. Retrieved
April 16, 2017, from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2008/08/22/grendon-
prison-a-model-for-therapeutic-care/
"Department of Civil Service." Compensation » HR Professionals. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 June 2017.
Depersis, D. S., & Lewis, A. (2008). The development of American prisons and
punishment. The International Journal of Human Rights, 12(4), 637-651.
doi:10.1080/13642980802204818
Disability Rights New York. (2016). Report and Recommendations on the Treatment of
Individuals with Intellectual, Developmental, and Mental Health Disabilities at Sullivan
Correctional Facility New York: DRNY.
Durose, M., Cooper, A., Snyder, H. (2014) Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 30 States In 2005:
Patterns From 2005 To 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986
Facts. (2016, October 12). Retrieved February 18, 2017, from http://nycaic.org/facts/
Gordon, S. (2014). Solitary Confinement, Public Safety, and Recidivism. University of Michigan
Journal of Law Reform, 47(2), 495-528.
Hager, E, and Rich, G. (2014). Shifting Away from Solitary. The Marshall Project.
Historic Settlement Overhauls Solitary Confinement in New York. (n.d.)New York Civil Liberties
Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. Retrieved February 18,
2017, from http://www.nyclu.org/news/historic-settlement-overhauls-solitary-confinement-
new-york
Kapoor, R. & Trestman, R. (2016). Mental Health Effects of Restrictive
Housing. NCJ 250321. In Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future
Directions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Labrecque, R. (2015). The Effect of Solitary Confinement on Institutional Misconduct: A

38
longitudinal evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati ) [Abstract]. (UMI No.
3734617)
Latessa, E.J. (2012). Designing More Effective Correctional Programs Using Evidence-
Based Practices. 151
ST
International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers. Resource
Material Series No. 88. UNAFEI. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No88/No88_10VE_Latessa_Designing.pdf
“Library.” Boxed In, www.boxedinny.org/library/.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
MFUME, Kweisi. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://history.house.gov/People/Detail/18186
NAACP chief Mfume resigns. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/30/naacp.resigns/index.html
NYSCOPBA. (2018, February 1). NYSCOPBA RENEWS CALL FOR MEASURES THAT
PROTECT CORRECTIONAL STAFF AS CONTRABAND
SEIZURES HIT RECORD HIGHS [Press release]. Retrieved March 13, 2018, from
https://www.nyscopba.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/180201_pr_contraband.pdf
O’Donnell, D. (2016). Committee on Correction 2016 Annual Report. New York State Assembly.
Retrieved on March 20, 2017 from
http://nyassembly.gov/comm/ Correct/2016Annual/index.pdf
Office of Mental Health. (n.d.). 2010-2011 Agency Budget Presentation. Retrieved July 09,
2017, from https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy1011archive/eBudget1011/
agencyPresentations/pdf/omh.pdf
Patten, D. (2016). The mass incarceration of nations and the global war on drugs: Comparing the
united states' domestic and foreign drug policies. Social Justice,
43(1), 85-105.
Pendergrass, T. (2015). What Can Reforming Solitary Confinement Teach

39
Us About Reducing Mass Incarceration? Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/10/13/what-can-reforming-solitary-
confinement-teach-us-about-reducing-mass-incarceration#.FmeKXDIGX
Pettus-Davis, C., & Epperson, M. W. (2014). From mass incarceration to smart
decarceration (CSD Working Paper 14-31). St Louis, MO: Washington
University, Center for Social Development.
Pettus-Davis, C., & Epperson, M. W. (2015). Smart Decarceration: Guiding Concepts for an Era of
Criminal Justice Transformation (CSD Working Paper 15-53). St Louis, MO: Washington
University, Center for Social Development.
Promote smart decarceration. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2018, from http://aaswsw.org/grand-
challenges-initiative/12-challenges/promote-smart-decarceration/
Shames, A, Wilcox, J, and Subramanianm, R. (2015). Solitary Confinement: Common
Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives. New York, NY: Vera Institute
of Justice.
The Council of Economic Advisors. (2018, May). Returns on Investments in Recidivism-reducing
Programs. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Returns-on-Investments-in-Recidivism-Reducing-Programs.pdf
The Sentencing Project. (2017). Fact Sheet: Trends in U.S. Corrections. Retrieved March 20, 2017
from http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf
These Are Your N.Y. State Correctional Institutions: Auburn Prison. (1949, May). Correction. The
New York State Department of Correction. Volume XIV, Number V.
These Are Your N.Y. State Correctional Institutions: Auburn Prison. (1949, June). Correction. The
New York State Department of Correction. Volume XIV, Number VI.
United States Senate Bill S. 2724. Solitary Confinement Reform Act, 2018.
Unlock the Box. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.unlocktheboxcampaign.org/

40
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). (January 2016). Report and Recommendations
Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing: Final Report.

41
Appendices

Appendix One: Primary Research Outcomes

1. Dr. Edward Latessa, Leader in Criminology- RNR theory. We discussed my proposal. He had
thoughts on other places who have done similar things well- Washington and California. He reported
that in Washington they got buy in from the officers by allowing them to sign up to be a part of the
program and this also got investment from inmates because they knew the officers were invested. We
discussed dosage instead on length of stay.
2. David Porter, DOCCS Recreation Supervisor Works at Auburn CF. He reported that he believes
that the system is good the way that it is, that it is meant to punish individuals who commit crimes. He
believed the main problem facing the criminal justice system is the length of time between the crime
and actually being incarcerated for it. He stated that the incentive to have prison is to “get the riff-raff
off the streets.” He did not believe my innovation would be effective as he does not believe that
behavior mod is effective with this population.
3. Sue Porter, OMH Social Worker at Auburn CF. She stated that prison is meant both for punishment
and rehabilitation and that solitary confinement is meant to “deprive inmates who have disciplinary
problems of the few privileges they have in an effort, apparently, to cut down on disciplinary
problems.” She would like to see a system that offers extensive substance abuse treatment,
appropriate mental health services and comprehensive discharge planning.
4. Edward Fagan, DOCCS Officer at Auburn CF. He reported that the purpose of prison is to “separate
people in society who cannot follow the laws of that society” as a corrective measure but that it does
not work. He discussed that the idea of solitary does not exists like it does in the movies and that
inmates are limited to less recreation and programs. He believes that Prisons and SHUs no longer
work and that going to one is no longer a deterrent. He believes that the breakdown of the traditional
family is at fault for the mass incarceration problem and that with more solid home lives kids would
learn to be more productive members of society. He also believes that the shift in society and the
double standard that those in power do not have to follow laws has trickled down to everyone.
5. Daniel Sanchez, Mechanical Engineer, friend. He defined solitary confinement as “a psychological
form of torture to attempt behavior correction. Isolate from rehabilitation.” He reports that the system
is plagued by no actual rehabilitation of inmates and a strong stigma against them. He is aware of
Scandinavian “open prisons” as an alternative and believes these are effective. He believes that
solitary is a place to “sweep people under the rug.” He would like to see a program that focus on
community outreach and rehabilitation projects. He also believes that not looking at the true root of the
problem is what is making things worse. He believes that the systematic race issues have left deep
scars and deep-rooted bias for those in power.
6. Emma Rockwood, MHC, military wife. She believes that the purpose of prison is to “watch
and house those who cannot be left alone without supervision due to some act they have committed.
They could be held in prison until their time is up or it is determined that they can be without
supervision.” He believes the main problem is the unethical treatment of prisoners and that prisons are
economy based and focused on making money. She believes that we should focus on all the issues in
our society everyday not one more than another. She did feel that the innovation was effective and a
good way to have inmates learn practical skills while also providing extra supervision.

42
7. Christopher Celentano, Priest in Catholic Church. He believed that the purpose of prison is
“Restitution to society, protection for the general population and hopefully rehabilitation.” He was
aware of the alternatives in Norway- Halden Prison. He believes that the US is way behind and is
reactionary in nature instead of being proactive. He believes that society is at fault because of the
breakdown of the family. And that “Children need a mother and a father. American culture needs to
reinforce provide positive pressure for families to stay together.” He thought the innovation was good
because it is clear what we are currently doing is ineffective.
8. Daniel Sokol, Retired Army Vet and Student. He believes that prison “is a way to remove threats
from society.” He also thought that the mixing of people who commit small nonviolent offenses with
violent offenses is a contributing factor to the current problem with the criminal justice system. He
thought that nonviolent offenders should be offered work programs and that school should be
mandatory. He suggested that there be “Mental health screening before being released into the prison
population used as a tool to separate prisoners.”
9. Cheryl Herzog, Mother of two children in Central New York. She believes that the number of young
people turning to crime is the main problem facing the criminal justice system and that the current
prison is not offering programs that help to rehabilitate them. Her thoughts were “I feel in some cases
mentoring and a strong and structured program designed to help inmate realize they have potential,
value and a place in society would be beneficial. So many young people lack a strong family
foundation and support system.” She liked the innovation proposed stating “As a person working in the
field of developmental disabilities we have many “behavior plans” that work along these same lines.
Offering incentives and perks to those who accept and complete programs is a good thing. For those
that choose the different path then having repercussions for their behavior is necessary. It puts the
ownness on them for how they choose to behave and conduct themselves in the future.”
10. Penni Boucher, Conservative Christian, neighbor. She believes that “the purpose of prison is to
punish and hold a person found guilty of a crime. It should also be a place for rehabilitation with
career training so that upon release into society they are prepared to be productive citizen.” And that
the purpose of solitary is “to keep people safe from the person in confinement as well as mentally
punish them.” She believes that overcrowding is the main issue and that this is rooted in “homes,
schools and lack of mentoring the fatherless.” She also believes that having the bible in school would
be more beneficial than giving them one after they are already incarcerated. One interesting idea that
she had was “A rotating citizen panel (hidden behind one way mirrored window) witnessing and being
able to ask potential program participant questions to discern their potential approval into the program
may assist in weeding out those that would manipulate this type of program. When appropriate
requiring them to attend victim panel meetings related to their offense, as well as, discussing and
writing what they learned from the experience of listening to the victims/ victim's family.”
11. Lori Houppert, School counselor- perspective from a school framework. She believed that the
purpose of prison is containment of behaviors that affect public safety. She believed the main problem
facing the criminal justice system was that people are “detained” for “minimal crimes” and people not
being “detained long enough for serious crimes.” She believes that inmates should not live “more
comfortably” than the working population. Her suggestion was “stop giving them anything except the
bare minimum.” She believes that prison should be made more uncomfortable. She believed that the
innovation could work for some but that inmates need stronger supports before they commit crimes.
12. Brenda Abraham, Former secretary for OMH at Auburn Correctional Facility- perspective as a
retired staff member in the facility and with OMH. She captured the most realistic picture of solitary
confinement discussing its various uses. She believed some of the main problems facing the criminal
justice system are staff shortages, and the caliber of inmates entering the prison system. She also
believes that solitary confinement is necessary and that “doing away with one measure of discipline
available is not the right way to go.” She also talked about the fact that inmates do not take full

43
advantage of the many programs offered them like education. She did not believe that any program,
even with unlimited budget, would be successful in taking the place of a prison system. She believed
that we need to focus on the problem of employment first in that people need living wages that affords
the decent housing and food. She felt like the BCU would not be a good program because we should
reward inmates who are a disciplinary problem. She also felt that out of restart chairs this would be an
unsafe thing to do for staff.
13. Diane Burton, state employee, mother of former inmate- perspective from family angle. She
believed that the purpose of prison was “retribution” and that solitary confinement was to “protect the
inmate, other inmate’s prison staff.” She noted that she has heard of alternatives like boot camps but
has not heard about effectiveness of these. She believes that counseling should include the family.
She suggested that the empty facilities should be turned into what fits the crime- drug related offenses
to a facility that focuses on additions. She suggested that the BCU be mandatory for all inmates’ not
just SHU inmates in order to obtain release from incarceration. She did not agree with earned
incentives as she believes the need to “wheel and deal” is part of the overall problem with society.
14. Josh Suppa, friend- lives in another county- perspective based on growing up near a different
facility. He stated that the purpose of prison is “to waste taxpayer’s money, and effort to teach
criminals a lesson by providing cable, a bed, 3 meals a day and a daily phone call.” He gave a very
frank opinion on the situation at hand emphasizing that the system isn’t working. He stated the
incentive to prison for criminals is to meet likeminded individuals and join a support group aka a gang.
He joked that prison should be a source of entertainment in order to give people a return on their
investment like gladiator combat. While this is an outrageous thought. It’s helpful to think about the
most ridiculous things and see if there is a way to provide a “return on investment.”
15. Justin Rahn, College Advisor at MVCC- educational perspective. He reported that he felt the
purpose was both punishment and correctional but that the current system is both succeeding and
failing because of the finite number of recourse that can be allocated to the system. He believes the
biggest problem is understaffing, lack of proper program oversight, lack of understanding on how to
properly provide correctional routes instead of purely punishment based routs, and the general lack of
understanding of the purpose of the system. He likes the idea of community services and parole
because it helps the person give back to the community and also forces them to provide for their own
needs instead of the system providing them. He believes reasonable educational and economic
reform should be a priority because crime can be related to level of education attainment and
economic opportunity. He also discussed that incentives for the BCU need to be thought out and need
to be aligned with what inmates want. He also discussed the difference of jumping through hoops vs
actually working towards mindset shifts

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Behavior Correction Unit focuses on the Grand Challenge on Smart Decarceration with a focus on changing the prison paradigm. Its approach is that of an inside out framework in that if recidivism can be reduced within the prison walls it can then be scaled to affect recidivism in the community. It is innovative because it does not focus on eradicating solitary confinement altogether and instead focuses on working within the current system to create positive change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Hand to Home Project

PDF

One-Time-Only Program: smart decarceration response to mass incarceration

PDF

Collective impact addressing social isolation for older adults living independently in the community; a capstone innovation project

PDF

The Nonviolent Communication Program (NVC): the innovative step to combat prison violence

PDF

Homeless female veterans—silent epidemic

PDF

Ensuring the healthy development of all youth by focusing on the psychosocial well-being of early childhood professionals

PDF

Addison’s Neighbor: permanent supportive housing for parenting youth transitioning out of foster care

PDF

The 3 minus T spproach: building meaningful community connections by designing neighborhoods conscious of the effects of adversity focused on the healthy development of all children

PDF

Strength-Based Reporting: a trauma-informed practice for mandated reporters, to address behavioral health concerns in children at risk of child welfare involvement

PDF

Reducing the prevalence of missed primary care appointments in community health centers

PDF

Immigrant Kidney Project: connecting undocumented dialysis patients with more compassionate and cost-effective quality outpatient care

PDF

La cocina de abuela: eradicating social isolation with Latino older adults

PDF

Employed! A supported reentry program

PDF

Military and veteran

PDF

The art of connection: youth stories about life and meaning. Voices of Promise: using social practice art for youth connection

PDF

Blue Star Families Connected Communities Pilot

PDF

Assessment and analysis of direct care community worker training: addressing social determinants of health in the home care setting

PDF

The Medicine Blanket Project

PDF

Capstone proposal: utilizing trained medical interpreters: a workshop for medical providers

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Oliver, Amber Marie (author)

Core Title The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Social Work

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 03/14/2019

Defense Date 11/29/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag behavior modification,grand challenge,incapacitation,incarceration,Mental Health,OAI-PMH Harvest,Prison,recidivism,reform,rehabilitative,restrictive housing,Risk Needs Responsivity model,segregated confinement,segregation,SHU,solitary,solitary confinement,special housing,special housing unit

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Enrile, Annalisa (committee chair), Browning, Phillip (committee member), Manderscheid, Ronald (committee member)

Creator Email amberroy@usc.edu,oliverambermarie@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-133987

Unique identifier UC11675510

Identifier etd-OliverAmbe-7163.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-133987 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OliverAmbe-7163.pdf

Dmrecord 133987

Document Type Capstone project

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Oliver, Amber Marie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA