Welcome to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction

Skip Navigation

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction IPP - Reentry Elements

Any Intensive Program Prison should possess the characteristics that have been shown by research-based evidence to be associated with effective correctional programs. In addition, we should ensure that any IPP devised and implemented by the Department be not only compatible with but also supportive of other departmental initiatives, such as Reentry and Community Justice. To that end, the following elements are considered crucial to an effective, well-run program:

  • The program purpose and goals must be clear. This will ensure that the program supports the goals of Reentry as well as providing a way to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
  • IPP programs must be viewed as credible alternatives to continued incarceration by judges and other stakeholders. Thus, programs must be demonstrably effective, inmates must meet appropriately high standards for successful completion, the operation of the programs must remain faithful to the program model, and inmates must be accountable for their behavior.
  • IPP programs must address criminogenic needs. This point comes from the "what works?" literature and says that the programs which are most effective in reducing offender recidivism are those which target the specific criminogenic needs of the offender. [1] This idea suggests that every program we offer as the major focus of an IPP should be one that provides treatment for a criminogenic need. To the greatest extent possible, this principle ought to apply also to the secondary programs offered by IPPs.
  • Each offender assigned to an IPP should have been assessed as having a need in the criminogenic need area targeted by the primary IPP program. Ideally, each inmate selected for participation in an IPP would have been assessed as having a "considerable need" in the IPP"s primary program area. However, inmates who are assessed at the "some need" level in a program area will also be considered for IPP participation. This element is relatively straightforward for programs such as education and substance abuse treatment. For IPPs with other types of primary programs (e.g., an IPP with a community justice focus), however, inmates should have at least some need in not only the primary program area, but in the secondary program areas as well.
  • Reentry planning will still begin early in the reception process; if the offender is IPP-eligible and is approved for a program, the assigned IPP program should be incorporated on the "offender"s RAP as the selected program for the assessed need(s).
  • IPP programs should target the appropriate populations.
  • From a population control point of view, selection of participants should follow the suggestions by Parent discussed above. IPPs should select inmates with sentences long enough that their reduction will have a discernible impact on population.
  • Regardless of the programmatic focus of the IPP, in most instances selected inmates should have scored at the "Reentry Intensive" level on their initial risk assessments.
  • The period of intensive programming in the institution must be followed by a period of community supervision that includes appropriate treatment (e.g., referral to community service providers, relapse prevention, etc.).[2] Petersilia suggests that this period of supervision programming is essential to sustaining effective intervention (2003: 179).
  • Research suggests that "intensive programs" last for three to nine months. [3] With our IPPs, the institutional period will take only a part of the recommended duration of the program. Therefore, compatible, matching programming must be utilized under community supervision to reinforce and complete the treatment effect.
  • Research also shows that the most effective intensive programs occupy between 40 percent and 70 percent of an offender's time in the program.[4] This should be the standard for the primary focus of the program; secondary programs should occupy most of the remaining time.
  • To the greatest extent appropriate, programs should be cognitive/behavioral in approach.[5]
  • "Successful completion" of the IPP means completion of both the institutional phase and the community supervision/treatment phase. Although under current practice, sentence reduction occurs after successful completion of only the ninety-day program, the Work Group supports the view that both phases must be seen as essential to ensure that the treatment is most effective. A period of post-release supervision of a reasonable duration, including at least so time at the intensive supervision level, should be required for all program participants.
  • Candidates for an Intensive Program Prison may be required to go through a thirty-day pre-treatment curriculum on motivation in order to maximize the effect of the subsequent programming. This curriculum will stress techniques designed to develop the candidates" "readiness to change."[6] An indicator of that determination of motivation and readiness to change will be the willingness of the inmate to complete the application to participate in the IPP program.
  • As part of the application, IPP participants should be required to agree to language stating that they will not be permitted to voluntarily withdraw from the program during the first three weeks.[7]
  • Intensive Program Prison programs should be pre-approved for Reentry purposes. Therefore, each program curriculum (which includes both primary and secondary programs) should contain two Community Justice elements or components. [8]
[Back to top]


Andrews, Don A. (1995) "The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment," in James McGuire, ed. What Works: Reducing Reoffending. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley, pp. 35-62.

Andrews, Don A. and James Bonta. (1998), The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 2nd edition. Cincinnati OH: Anderson Publishing.

Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. (2000). "Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects," in NIJ Criminal Justice 2000: Changes in Decision Making and Discretion in the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Field, Gary. (1998). Continuity of Offender Treatment: Institution to the Community. In Continuity of Offender Treatment from Institution to the Community. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, D.C.

Gendreau, Paul. (1995) "The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders." In Choosing Correctional Options that Work. Alan Harland (ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little and Claire Goggin. 1996. "A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!" Criminology 34 (November) pp. 575-607.

Kennedy, Sharon. (2000) "Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment Effectiveness." Forum Vol. 12, No. 2 (May 2000). Correctional Service of Canada.

Miller, William R. (1999). Enhancing Motivation for Change in Substance Abuse Treatment. (Treatment Improvement Protocol Series). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

Parent, Dale. (1996). Boot Camps and Prison Crowding. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Petersilia, Joan. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Stewart, Lynn and William Milison. (1995) "Offender Motivation for Treatment as a Responsivity Factor." Forum Vo. 7, No. 3 (September 1995). Correctional Service of Canada.

Stewart, Lynn and Janice Cripps Picheca. (2001) "Improving Offender Motivation for Programming." Forum Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 2001). Correctional Service of Canada.

[1] See, for example, Andrews and Bonta (1998); Gendreau, Little and Goggin. (1996) [2] See, for example, Fields (1998: 5) and Petersilia (2003: 84) [3] See Petersilia (2003) and Gendreau (1995) [4] See Gendreau (1995) [5] See, for example, Andrews (1995); Cullen and Gendreau (2000) [6] See Miller (1999), Stewart and Milison (1995), Stewart and Picheca (2001), Kennedy (2000) [7] See Parent (1996) [8] DRC Policies 02-REN-02 VI (B) (2) (b) and 04-CMJ-02 VI (A)

[Back to top]