Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada
Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Home > Research > Research Reports

Institutional links

Research Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Assisting Offenders with Learning Disabilities: An Evaluation of the Learning Strategies Classroom Pilot Program (LSCP)

2003 No R-141

Shelley L. Brown
Bea Fisher
Yvonne Stys
Catherine Wilson
Nicole Crutcher

Research Branch and Reintegration Programs Division
Correctional Service of Canada

August 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1999, CSC requested additional funding from Treasury Board to develop and fully implement a new education program for offenders with learning disabilities (LD). In response, Treasury Board agreed to fund the development and pilot testing of the program including, a research evaluation. Treasury Board also provided funding to meet corresponding training requirements and to develop a standardized assessment process for the identification of offenders with LD. At the time of the original request, Treasury Board decided not to grant funding for full implementation but rather to wait for the results of the pilot study.

This report reviews the learning disability literature, the newly developed LD assessment and screening process, the program that CSC developed for offenders with LD, namely the Learning Strategy Classroom Program (LSCP) and, most importantly, provides a research evaluation of the LSCP. Specifically, the impact of the LSCP on correctional program participation, skills acquisition and general institutional adjustment is reported. Recommendations and directions for future research are discussed.

Report highlights:

  • In sum, 77 offenders (75 men and 2 women) housed in medium-security institutions from across the country completed the LSCP. Initially, 97 offenders started the program; however, 20 did not complete it for various reasons, including personal choice, expulsion and institutional transfers. Additionally, 40% of the LSCP completers were Aboriginal.
  • The LSCP was highly successful in helping offenders with LD improve their performance in other correctional programs designed specifically to reduce to the risk of recidivism. More specifically, a statistical analysis of change that compared the behaviour of LSCP participants in a correctional program before and after the LSCP revealed that offenders made highly significant gains in the following areas: degree of active program participation, completion of assignments, attitude, behaviour, effort, motivation, responsibility, problem solving and communication skills.
  • Similar trends, although not as pronounced, were found for Aboriginals. It is important to emphasize that the less pronounced findings for Aboriginals were in all likelihood due to the relatively small sample size of Aboriginals. For example, while the magnitude of observed change for the Aboriginal sub-sample was often similar to that of the entire sample, the degree of statistical significance was often reduced. Statistical significance is inversely related to sample size in that it is much easier to find statistically significant results with large samples. In contrast, it is much more difficult to find significance when smaller samples are used.
  • The LSCP teachers reported that 88% of the program participants, as well as 88% of the Aboriginal sub-sample, showed evidence of using the skills and strategies acquired during the LSCP in other correctional programs.
  • No significant differences were found in terms of the number of prison misconducts committed by the LSCP participants prior to and after the LSCP. However, a significant reduction in the amount of general negative behaviour was observed as a result of the LSCP. More specifically, reductions in the following areas were noted post-LSCP: displays inappropriate energy levels, insults/swears at others, very demanding/rude, sullen/limited remarks, negative interactions, and does not initiate social interaction with staff. Once again, similar trends, albeit less pronounced, were found for Aboriginals.
  • Due to low frequency counts, it was difficult to assess to what extent the LSCP had an impact on previously identified problem areas in academics. Generally, no change was observed with the exception of mathematics. Math abilities significantly improved post-LSCP among those individuals who had a specific LD in math. Additionally, a marginal improvement was noted for the language component of the writing domain. The results for Aboriginals were not examined due to excessively low frequency counts.
  • LSCP also had a slight impact on improving attention and organizational skills.
  • Overall, the LSCP participants, particularly the Aboriginals, reported favourable opinions and experiences with the LSCP.
  • Lastly, while there was some evidence that program participants retained the skills learnt through LSCP after program completion, a large portion did not.

Although the LSCP is for those individuals with a potential LD, some students who are referred to the LSCP are low cognitive functioning. It would be reasonable for the LSCP teacher, given his/her expertise, to make recommendations regarding learning strategies that might be successful for this type of student. Further monitoring through the classroom teacher would allow the student access to the special education expertise of the LSCP teacher without significantly adding to the workload.

The results of the LSCP pilot show a slight decrease in the use of the learning strategies and accommodations over time. A more positive influence in this trend could be achieved if there was a greater understanding of LD by employers and other CSC staff. It is recommended that CSC launch a staff training initiative designed to increase awareness around LD for front-line staff.

It is also recommended that each LSCP graduate return to the LSCP for a "booster" session of two to three hours to assist in reinforcing his/her learning strategies and accommodations.

It is recommended that further discussion occur regarding the potential usefulness of the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA) teaching method. Currently it is only being used in the Prairie region.

Lastly, it is recommended that further research be conducted to help refine the assessment process as well as the LSCP. Additionally, if the LSCP is implemented nationally, it is recommended that the Research Branch be involved in creating a built-in evaluation process to facilitate future evaluations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project was conducted in partnership between the Reintegration Programs Division and the Research Branch of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). On behalf of the research team (Shelley Brown, Bea Fisher, Yvonne Stys, Catherine Wilson, Nicole Crutcher, Donna Mailloux, Ralph Serin and Joey Mileto), we wish to extend our sincere thanks to everyone who participated in this project.

From National Headquarters, we wish to thanks Denis Barbe, Manager of Educational Programming, and Karen Barclay, Education Officer.

We would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by the regional managers: Rob McCreary (PAC), Bea Fisher (PRA), Peter Pain (ONT), Sonja Ellefsen (QUE) and Jean-Guy Bourque (ATL).

The dedication and commitment shown by the LSCP teachers is to be greatly appreciated: Michelle Roxborough (PAC), Margaret Wright (PRA), Joanne LeFebvre (ONT), Mireille Boisvert and Julie Ostiguy (QUE), and Liam McGuigan and Marie Dennis (ATL).

Similarly, we thank the following regional screening coordinators for their role in this project: Michelle Roxborough (PAC), Susan Yantz (PRA), John Syme (ONT), Yvon Lamoureux (QUE), and Nazeer Junus (ATL).

Additionally, we would like to thank the project’s National Advisory Committee as well as the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) for their respective contributions.

Special thanks are extended to Margaret Wright and Bea Fisher for taking on national responsibilities throughout the project.

Lastly, we would like to thank the following members of the Research Branch at NHQ for assisting with elements of data collection, analysis and extraction: David Lenihan, Justin Gileno, Ben Vuong and Colette Cousineau.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION

Definition of learning disabilities

The term "learning disabilities" (LD) was originally coined in the early 1960s to describe students who performed poor academically in the absence of cognitive or intellectual impairment (Crealock, 1987). Since then, considerable time and effort has been devoted to understanding the causes, nature, and prevalence of LD as well as the best course of intervention for individuals with LD. Additionally, the definition of LD has been less than universal, varying across time and settings. To ensure consistency in the understanding and definition of LD, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has adopted the definition that was ratified by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) in 2002. This definition is based on an extensive review of research literature, input from hundreds of individuals from across Canada, as well as the LDAC National Legal Committee and the LDAC "Think Tank" (LDAC, 2002). According to the LDAC:

"Learning Disabilities" refer to a number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, understanding or use of verbal or nonverbal information. These disorders affect learning in individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking and/or reasoning. As such, learning disabilities are distinct from global intellectual deficiency.

Learning disabilities result from impairments in one or more processes related to perceiving, thinking, remembering or learning. These include, but are not limited to: language processing; phonological processing; visual spatial processing; processing speed; memory and attention; and executive functions (e.g. planning and decision making).

Learning disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or more of the following:

  • oral language (e.g. listening, speaking, understanding);
  • reading (e.g. decoding, phonetic knowledge, word recognition, comprehension);
  • written language (e.g. spelling and written expression); and
  • mathematics (e.g. computation, problem solving).

Learning disabilities may also involve difficulties with organizational skills, social perception, social interaction and perspective taking.

Learning disabilities are lifelong. The way in which they are expressed may vary over an individual’s lifetime, depending on the interaction between the demands of the environment and the individual’s strengths and needs. Learning disabilities are suggested by unexpected academic under-achievement or achievement which is maintained only by unusually high levels of effort and support.

Learning disabilities are due to genetic and/or neurobiological factors or injury that alters brain functioning in a manner which affects one or more processes related to learning. These disorders are not due primarily to hearing and/or vision problems, socio-economic factors, cultural or linguistic differences, lack of motivation or ineffective teaching, although these factors may further complicate the challenges faced by individuals with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities may co-exist with various conditions including attentional, behavioural and emotional disorders, sensory impairments or other medical conditions (LDAC, 2002).

Although this report focuses exclusively on learning disabilities, it is important to be aware of the differences between someone with learning disabilities and someone with learning difficulties or who learns differently. Briefly, individuals with learning difficulties simply have a problem understanding the content of a particular subject area; the learning process itself is not impaired. Thus, a learning difficulty in math, for example, can be remedied simply by using a different teaching method, a different textbook, or the provision of additional math exercises. In contrast, for individuals with LD in math, the learning or thought processes associated with learning math are themselves deficit. Consequently, a qualitatively different approach—one that accommodates the disability itself—is required to address the math deficit. An accommodation strategy allows the student to learn how to do the same task (for example, calculate fractions) but in a different way (use of a calculator). It permits the student to use his/her strengths to work around the need area. An accommodation is not cheating but rather is a means of making things fair in the same way that a guide dog assists a visually impaired person in his/her daily commute to work (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2001).

Prevalence rates of learning disabilities

The prevalence of LD among the general adult population varies from 7% to 17%, with an average prevalence rate of 10% (Bell, Conrad, & Suppa, 1984; Moke & Halloway, 1986). However, among individuals diagnosed with Conduct Disorder (CD), the prevalence of LD increases substantially to range from 10% to 25% (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Among Canadian offender populations, prevalence estimates have ranged from 7% to 41% (Bell et al., 1984; Moke & Halloway, 1986). However, the range is reportedly less variable within federal institutions (7% to 25%; Lysakowski, 1980). In contrast, American studies involving juvenile offenders have reported prevalence estimates as low as 9% and as high as 76% (Bell et al., 1984). Differential testing and diagnostic procedures coupled with diverse sampling and less-than-universal definitions of LD most likely account for the discrepant prevalence rates.

Arguably, the variable prevalence rate of LD among incarcerated populations may not be particularly relevant in determining whether or not an intervention is required for adult offenders with LD. For example, research shows that in comparison with their community counterparts, adult offenders are significantly less likely to have been formally diagnosed with LD and thus are less likely to have reaped the benefits of early intervention. For example, it is estimated that 70 to 80% of non-criminal adults with LD have benefited from early identification and intervention. In contrast, it is likely that only 20 to 30% of incarcerated offenders have received the same level of early identification and intervention. Consequently, even if the prevalence of LD among incarcerated offenders is lower than expected, the vast majority of offenders with LD will require intensive intervention by the time they have reached the adult correctional system due to the absence of early childhood/adolescence intervention. Thus, from a cost perspective, the same level of resources would be required to treat 10% of offenders requiring intensive intervention as it would to treat 25% of offenders in need of less intensive intervention.

Learning disabilities and criminal behaviour

The relationship between learning disabilities and criminal behaviour has not been thoroughly researched. However, the research that does exist supports three plausible theories (see Figure 1). The first and least likely explanation is that learning disabilities are causally related to criminal behaviour. In the early part of the 20th century, it was estimated that individuals with LD were 220% more likely to engage in delinquent acts than their non-LD counterparts (Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1987). However, more recent research has discounted this view (Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1987).

The second pathway model conceptualizes LD as a responsivity factor. Briefly, responsivity factors refer to "the specific competencies, interests, or learning styles that a client must possess in order to benefit from particular types of programs" (Andrews and Bonta, 1998, p. 89). The responsivity principle (Andrews & Bonta, 1998), which states that the mode of program delivery should be matched to the offender’s learning style, is one of the most firmly established principles within corrections. Additionally, an extensive amount of research has shown that the best strategy for reducing criminal recidivism is through the provision of programs that not only target the "criminogenic" need factors of high risk offenders, but also do so while adhering to the responsivity principle (Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 2002; Lösel, 1995). Additionally, it has also been shown that offenders who drop out of correctional programs are significantly more likely to recidivate upon release (Dowden, Blanchette & Serin, 1999). Thus, if offenders with LD are to benefit fully from correctional programming, it stands to reason that the method of service delivery must be consistent with their learning styles. Alternatively, accommodations must be made so that they can adapt to the existing mode of treatment delivery.

The final pathway model posits that the relationship between LD and crime is mediated through poor educational achievement and unemployment. Thus, learning disabilities are not causally related to crime, but rather, learning disabilities result in poor educational achievement, resulting in employment deficits that, in turn, lead to criminality (Brier, 1994; Boe, 1998; Morrison & Cosden, 1997; Stevens, 2001).

FIGURE 1: Learning disability/crime link: a conceptual model

FIGURE 1: Learning disability/crime link: a conceptual model

The research shows that offenders are one of the most uneducated groups within society. In 1987, only one-half of the federal offender population had achieved the equivalent of Grade 8. However, this figure had increased substantially to 70% by 1994 (Boe, 1998; CSC, 2000). More recently, CSC reported that 78% of offenders do not have a high school diploma (Motiuk, Boe, & Nafekh, 2003). Despite the high prevalence of poor academic achievement among offenders, education itself has not figured prominently as a strong predictor of criminal recidivism (Gendreau, Goggin & Gray, 1998; Pearson & Lipton, 1999). However, evaluation studies that have specifically examined the effects of educational programming on recidivism have generated modest yet significant results (Stevens, 2001). For example, CSC’s Adult Basic Education (ABE Grade 8) program has been shown to reduce re-admission rates by 7.1%. Interestingly, the reduction in re-admission rates jumped to 21.3% for ABE participants who completed Grade 10 (Boe, 1998).

A growing body of research is beginning to show that employment is a particularly strong predictor of criminal recidivism (Brown, 2002; Gendreau et al., 1998; Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Motiuk, 1991). In fact, the research indicates that the predictive power of employment is similar to that of risk factors traditionally considered to be among the most powerful predictors (for example, criminal attitudes, associates, criminal history and criminal personality; Andrews & Bonta, 1998). Furthermore, it is estimated that by 2004, more than 70% of all new jobs in Canada will require some form of post-secondary education (Government of Canada, 2002). Consequently, the importance of education in facilitating the offender’s safe return to society can not be underestimated.

The increasing need to educate offenders has resulted in the initiation of a number of educational (such as the Adult Basic Education program [ABE]) and vocational/work programs (carpentry, plumbing, metal trades, etc.) within CSC. Currently, almost 40% of the federal incarcerated population is enrolled in an ABE program (CSC, 2000). While the ABE program continues to help a large majority of offenders achieve their academic requirements, it cannot effectively address the needs of offenders with LD. Offenders with LD are a heterogeneous group in need of specialized intervention strategies that traditional ABE classroom settings are not equipped to provide. For this reason, classrooms designed specifically to address special needs of offenders with LD are required.

Assessment and program development strategy

Prior to this project, learning disabilities were assessed primarily during the Offender Intake Assessment process. The purpose of this initial assessment is to devise a sentence-wide correctional treatment plan that will assist in the offender’s successful return to society. Although the entire intake assessment process relies upon a variety of information sources that are both official and unofficial in nature, the assessment of learning disabilities is based largely on offender self-report. A single yes/no indicator, "Has Learning Disabilities" with the following rating guideline, "Learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) were confirmed through formal assessment," is used to assess the presence or absence of LD. Intake staff are instructed to rate this indicator yes only if the offender indicates that he/she has previously been diagnosed with a learning disability through formal assessment or if a file review reveals evidence of LD. However, there is a potential for misclassification in the absence of more specialized assessment.

Currently in CSC, education is largely a contracted service that focusses on bringing the offender’s academic skill level to Grade 12. Approximately 270 teachers provide instruction in traditional classrooms, small groups or through individual tutoring (Longfield, 2003). In addition, each region is responsible for retaining the expertise and services of at least one special education teacher.

Until this project, there was no national standard intervention strategy for students with learning disabilities. However, all teachers in the Prairie Region have being using the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA) teaching method since 1997. CEA teaches students how to learn independently through the development of their own personal learning strategies using a vocabulary shared between the teacher and student.

In the absence of an existing specialized assessment process or standardized intervention, a learning disability survey (Appendix A) was created and distributed to 50 correctional jurisdictions in North America (n=38) and Europe (n=12). The purpose of the survey was to examine assessment and intervention strategies for offenders with learning disabilities in other jurisdictions. The survey comprised two sections: the first part surveyed LD assessment practices and the second component surveyed LD intervention strategies. Information gathered from this survey was to be used to potentially inform the policy and practices being developed by the CSC for offenders with LD.

Only 14% (n=7) of the surveys were returned. Furthermore, only one of the seven respondents (a correctional institution in Connecticut) reported having a formal assessment strategy for offenders with learning disabilities. However, they indicated that specialized services for offenders with LD were virtually non-existent apart from additional tutoring and access to a resource room.

As a result of the survey, the CSC decided to develop its own unique assessment and intervention strategy for offenders at risk for LD. CSC accomplished this objective by entering into a contractual agreement with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC), who were responsible for developing a philosophical basis for the Service’s LD assessment and intervention strategy. In response, the LDAC formed a Working Group comprising the following members: the Director of the Meighen Centre for Learning Assistance at Mount Allison University, the Director of the Learning Assistance Office at the University of British Columbia, the former Director of the Learning Assistance Office at the University of Guelph and a doctoral candidate with expertise in the field of learning disabilities from l’Université du Québec à Montréal. In addition, the LDAC Executive Director, as well as an Information Officer and Project Officer from the LDAC, participated in the meetings. The composition of the group facilitated a rich exchange of ideas and suggestions anchored in theory, established research and practice. Ultimately, the working group aimed to establish a philosophy that was not only consistent with community standards but would be considered state of the art among experts in the field of learning disabilities.

Based on their collective expertise and review of the research, the LDAC working group recommended that the CSC adopt a developmental strategy building model. This model represents a shift from the traditional, teacher-directed remedial approach to a student-centered problem-solving model. The teacher-directed remedial approach is content- or curriculum- rather than process-oriented. Additionally, the teacher alone identifies and prescribes solutions to the student, who can best be described as a passive participant in this approach. In contrast, the developmental strategy building modelrequires that the teacher and student work closely together to identify the problem and possible solutions. One of the most notable elements of this model is that it requires the student to articulate the problem and possible solutions in his/her own words. This in turn encourages students to internalize the meaning of the problem, to take ownership of the problem and to become autonomous, self-regulated learners. Thus, unlike the teacher-directed remedial approach, the student plays an active role in his/her intervention plan. Research has shown remarkable results when the developmental model of strategy building is used. Not only does this approach increase confidence and motivation in the student, but it also increases independent learning and enhances study skills that are likely be maintained (Wong, 1996; Brinckerhoff, 2000).

The LDAC working group concluded that the developmental strategy building model would be best suited for federal offenders with learning disabilities who most likely have experienced a history of academic failure that consequently would require targeted interventions. Further, the working group noted that research has shown that exposure to learning strategies alone does not ensure later transfer of skills to other subjects or settings. To guarantee the transfer of the newly acquired skills, the student must not only practice the techniques immediately upon relevant academic assignments but he/she must also be given follow-up support. In an adult correctional setting, a remedial-based approach would unlikely provide students with the opportunity to transfer their newly acquired skill set to other activities of daily living. In contrast, a learning strategies classroom approach anchored in the developmental model of strategy building would permit such a transfer of skills (LDAC, 2001).

CSC submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) with the specific objective of locating an organization or person who would be able to develop the specific elements of the program within the developmental strategy building framework. Only one group met the requirements of the RFP. Unfortunately, the proposed program was not commensurate with the developmental learning strategy philosophy. Furthermore, the contractor was unwilling to change the proposal in accordance with the guiding principals of the developmental learning model.

As a result, CSC assembled a National Advisory Committee that was responsible for developing the specific elements of the program. The Committee included CSC staff from National Headquarters (CSC Manager of Education, CSC Education Officer, CSC Researcher), front-line CSC staff (two LSCP teachers currently working in the Prairie and the Pacific regions), and external expertise from the academic community (a professor of Learning Disabilities, University of New Brunswick), as well as clinical practice (a neuro-psychologist in private practice). Guided by the developmental learning strategy philosophy, the National Advisory Committee developed the LD assessment and screening procedures and the actual intervention strategy for those identified as at risk for LD. Additionally, the Committee developed the corresponding training and research materials that were necessary to implement and evaluate the pilot LSCP study.

Learning Strategies Classroom Program (LSCP): Assessment process

The standardized process for screening offenders for LD at intake was created with following guidelines in mind:

  • It would not require specialized training
  • It could be administered in less than an hour
  • It could be administered individually
  • It could be used with adult male and adult females
  • It would only use standardized tests of academic achievement and cognitive functioning
  • It would target multiple skill areas
  • It would preferably be available in English and French, and
  • It could be readily integrated into CSC’s existing Offender Management System (OMS)

A detailed version of the screening process is provided in Appendix B. In sum, the screening process involved a file review, a screening checklist developed by the LDAC, standardized academic achievement test scores and standardized cognitive functioning test scores. All of this information is integrated in a systematic fashion to determine whether or not an individual should be flagged as at risk for LD. In brief, the screening process works as follows. First, a regional screening coordinator conducts a file review on each new admission to determine whether or not the candidate is eligible for the first phase of LD screening. More specifically, the regional coordinator examines the offenders’ academic achievement results obtained during the normal intake assessment process. While there is some regional variation in terms of which academic tests are used, each test has nonetheless been standardized. A list of academic achievement tests used by the CSC is provided in Appendix C. Offenders are considered eligible for the first phase of LD screening if the following two criteria are met: 1) the offender scored less than Grade10 in any academic area, and 2) there was an observed discrepancy of two or more grade levels between any two academic areas. For example, if an offender had Grade 10 in math but only Grade 4 in reading.

At this stage, an assessment of the offender’s cognitive functioning (intelligence), both verbal and non-verbal, is performed using a variety of standardized assessment tools (see Appendix D). Afterwards, the assessment results are summarized in the LD checklist (LDAC, see Appendix E). A structured analysis (see Appendix B for a detailed overview) of the offender’s test results is then conducted to determine whether or not he/she should be officially flagged in the Offender Management System (OMS) as at risk for LD. Once the flag is raised in OMS, offenders are referred to the Learning Strategies Classroom Program (LSCP). At this stage, the LSCP teacher conducts a more refined assessment that ultimately determines whether or not the individual will be admitted into the LSCP.

LSCP referrals can also be received from additional sources including classroom teachers, program facilitators, correctional officers, parole officers, workplace sites and lastly, the offender (see Appendix F). For these cases, the LSCP teacher is responsible for conducting the complete LD assessment to determine whether or not the offender meets all of the eligibility criteria.

Overview of the LSCP intervention

The LSCP is a multi-faceted intervention strategy delivered by teachers with expertise in special education that targets offenders at risk for LD. Ultimately, the goal of the LSCP is to assist offenders in overcoming their LD so that they can fully participate in and benefit from those correctional programs (for example, education, employment, substance abuse, violence prevention) that the offender must take to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behaviour. Ensuring that offenders not only start but also successfully complete correctional programs is a necessary step in ensuring that CSC fulfills its Mission:

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), as part of the criminal justice system and respecting the rule of law, contributes to the protection of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.

In addition, successful program completion is also consistent with the Service’s Strategic Objective pertaining to Reintegration: "Offenders who are safely and effectively reintegrated" outlined in CSC’s 2003–2004 Estimates Part III – Report on Plans and Priorities. The objectives of the LSCP are also consistent with recent recommendations put forth by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who stated that "the Committee believes that CSC should continue to facilitate offenders’ participation in education programming; it should look at ways to increase the number of offenders involved in such programming and expand the number of education and literacy programs offered in correctional institutions" (p. 62, Longfield, 2003).

The LSCP initially begins with a detailed assessment of the student’s unique pattern of LD. More specifically, the teacher assesses academic performance in reading, written language, oral language, decoding (reading), comprehension (reading), decoding (auditory), comprehension (auditory) and information processing. Information processing refers to a person’s ability to acquire, store and use information in at least one of the following areas: organizational skills, memory, learning efficiency, sequencing, visual, auditory, analytical thinking or problem solving abilities, critical thinking, and self-awareness. If necessary, the teacher will also assess the student’s cognitive abilities.

It is important to note that learning disabilities are highly person-specific, varying from person to person in terms of both type and severity. For example, learning disabilities can express themselves in any one or all of the following domains to varying degrees: reading, writing, math, spelling, cognitive processing, organizational abilities and study skills.

Once the specific nature of LD is determined, the teacher and student work together to determine the best course of action for addressing the deficit. Specific goals are also identified for attainment (for example, successful completion of homework assignments in substance abuse program). At this stage the student and teacher develop a personalized intervention plan designed to address the deficit areas and the specific goals. Although the intervention plan is highly personalized, varying from person to person, it is constructed from two standard elements: accommodations/ assistive technologies (Appendix G); and learning strategies.

Learning strategies are highly personal in nature. They must be tailored to match the unique needs of the individual. Consequently, no one general strategy exists that will be applicable to all students who have LD in math for example. Examples of learning strategies include the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA, Appendix H) teaching method, mapping (a teaching method that translates abstract ideas into concrete elements), brainstorming and motivational strategies.

Accommodations and assistive technologies can be used either as a learning strategy in and of themselves or as elements that facilitate the use of other strategies. They are distinctive from one another in that accommodations include any method or tool used to achieve an objective. In contrast, an assistive technology is a specific type of accommodation that is technological in nature (LDAC, 1999). Like learning strategies, accommodations can be quite diverse, ranging from calculators, highlighters and tape recorders to more sophisticated forms of technology including computer programs. Lastly, each LSCP is also provided with a set of reference materials to help facilitate in the assessment and intervention of individuals with LD (Appendix I)

Offenders are referred to the LSCP, on a part time basis. The amount of prescribed hours depends upon the severity of the disability. After this period they return to their referral site (usually school, other correctional programs, employment) for full application of the learned strategies.

Most offenders attend the LSCP for part of the day and return to the referral site for the rest of that day. The daily return to the context in which the LD was found gives the opportunity to practice of the LSCP strategies and helps to ensure transfer to other contexts of the offender’s life. This open-door policy between the LSCP and other program sites (for example, classroom, correctional programs, work site) helps to foster the transfer and provides a mechanism to verify that sustained learning is occurring. For the purposes of the pilot, a LSCP classroom was established in each region within the education environment of a medium-security institution. The assigned LSCP teacher was considered a specialist or expert in special education.

LSCP management framework

Expenditures

To ensure appropriate expenditure of the funds, the Manager of Education (NHQ) developed a fund-distribution structure that would allow for maximum value of the dollars spent, ensuring that training and further assistance, and monitoring of expenses could occur on a regular basis.

Standardization of the LSCP assessment and intervention strategy

A screening coordinator in each region was responsible for conducting the initial LD screening. In addition, a regional manager was responsible for implementing and monitoring the pilot project. The initial training session was conducted in March, 2002. During this session the National Advisory Committee trained all individuals involved in the pilot study. Training encompassed all domains of the pilot, including how to enter data into the national LSCP research protocol. In September, 2002, a second training session was conducted that addressed matters of consistency, approach, and reporting. Inconsistencies among the intake assessors were also resolved as were problems relating to the research protocol. Additionally, the LSCP teachers also received additional training pertaining to specific strategies and interventions.

After January 2003, bi-monthly conference calls were conducted among the LSCP teachers that assisted in maintaining the appropriate focus and allowed for discussion of problems encountered throughout the pilot study. Additionally, the LSCP teacher from the Prairie region assumed a lead role in troubleshooting unforeseen difficulties that occurred throughout the pilot study (temporary lost of a research contact or staff turnover, for example). She conducted on-site visits in each region with the exception of the Atlantic region which did not require assistance.

Pilot study objectives

The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the LSCP program. More specifically, the LSCP evaluation intends to measure to what extent:

  • The LSCP was successful in helping the participants improve performance in reading, writing, mathematics, communication skills and/or organizational skills.
  • The LSCP enhanced participation in other correctional programs
  • The strategies learned in the LSCP impacted institutional behaviours (for example, reduced prison misconducts; general negative behaviour)
  • LSCP participants maintained their progress over time, and lastly,
  • LSCP participants valued the program

LSCP logic model

A logic model is a visual conception of the relationships among the resources, activities, and results of a particular program. Particularly useful in program planning and evaluation, a logic model systematically outlines the key elements of a program, how they fit together, and how they all lead to a preconceived set of results and goals. It outlines the activities, outputs, outcomes (immediate and intermediate) and goals inherent in a program, helping program planners, administrators, evaluators, and stakeholders keep in mind the larger picture (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2001). The logic model for the Learning Strategies Classroom Project is outlined on the following page.

Figure 2: Learning strategies classroom logic model

Method

LSCP research protocol

CSC’s Research Branch created an electronic database that was available on-line to all of the LSCP teachers to facilitate data entry (Appendix J). The National Advisory Committee was responsible for establishing the content of the database. In brief, data entered into the LSCP protocol was obtained from a variety of sources, including OMS, program delivery officers, behavioural observation of the offender, and standardized test results. For example, academic achievement was typically assessed using the Canadian Adult Achievement Test (CAAT) while cognitive abilities were typically assessed using the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT). A complete listing of all possible standardized tests that were used in the study can be found in Appendix C.

Statistical analysis

A within-subjects research design was used to evaluate the effects of the LSCP. Thus, LSCP participants were assessed on a number of factors prior to starting the program and subsequently re-assessed on the same variables after completing the LSCP to determine whether or not significant change occurred. Although a large proportion of the analysis was descriptive in nature, the evaluation of change before and after LSCP was measured using paired t-tests. Statistical significance was reported at four levels—* p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001, and **** p < .0001. A p value of .05 indicates that there is a 5% probability that the observed differences are not meaningful but rather are due to random chance. The scientific community has adopted a p value of .05 as the benchmark for determining whether or not observed differences are statistically significant. However, in some circumstances (such as large sample sizes and multiple comparisons) a .05 value is much too liberal, resulting in a number of false positives (concluding there is a significant difference when in fact, there is not). Thus, in these circumstances, it is recommended that more stringent criteria be adopted. Consequently, the results of the statistical significance testing are reported for the standard .05 value as well as for more stringent p values (for example, p < .0001).

LSCP sampling and referral process

From April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, 694 offenders were officially identified in the Offender Management System (OMS) as being at risk for learning disabilities based on the new assessment and screening procedures described previously. Interestingly, it appears that a relatively higher percentage of individuals were flagged in the Atlantic and Quebec regions than what would be expected based on the regional distribution of incarcerated offenders. For example, although the Atlantic region housed only 9.7% of the entire incarcerated offender population that fiscal year, 17.3% of offenders who were flagged with LD during this same time frame came from the Atlantic region. In contrast, alternative trends were observed in the Ontario and Pacific regions. For example, while Ontario accounted for 27.2% of the entire incarcerated population, only 16.9% of offenders flagged with LD were also from the Ontario region. Interestingly, the Prairie region was the only region that did not display any discrepancies (see Table 1).

Table 1: Regional distribution of offenders at risk for LD

Region At risk for LD (n=694)
%		 Total Incarcerated population
(n=13,449)a
%
Atlantic 17.3 9.7
Quebec 34.1 25.6
Ontario 16.9 27.2
Prairies 21.8 22.9
Pacific 9.9 14.6

Note. a Information obtained from CSC’s Corporate Performance Results

LSCP referrals

During the course of the study period (April 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003), 334 participants were referred to the Learning Strategies Classroom Program (LSCP); 96% of the referrals were male (N = 281) and 4% (N = 12) were female. One-half (50%) of the referrals were Caucasian, 36% were Aboriginal and 11% were Black. The remaining 3% were classified as "Other". As Table 2 illustrates, the majority of referrals came from the Ontario and Prairie regions.

Table 2: Regional distribution of LSCP referrals

Region Referred participants (n=334)
%
Atlantic 10.2
Quebec 10.5
Ontario 35.9
Prairies 33.2
Pacific 10.2

LSCP referrals underwent an additional screening process conducted by the LSCP teachers. To gain entry into the LSCP, each referral had to have met seven criteria (see Table 3). It should be noted that the inclusion criteria included variables other than being at risk for LD to meet the needs of the pilot study. For example, in order to assess how the LSCP would affect performance in other correctional programs it was necessary that each LSCP participant be enrolled in a correctional program (such as substance abuse programming) while participating in the LSCP. Of the initial 334 referrals, 119 met all of the inclusion criteria and subsequently underwent additional testing by the LSCP teachers. It should be noted that potential LSCP candidates were erroneously referred to the program before the national screening process had been officially standardized. Consequently, some individuals who were initially referred to the LSCP clearly did not meet the basic LD requirements.

 

Table 3: Percentage of referrals who met each inclusion criterion

Inclusion criterion Referred participants (N = 334)
%
Under 50 years old 98.2
Cognitive impairment absent 84.7
Risk of learning disability present 82.3
More than six months remaining in sentence 83.2
No problems with institutional adjustment 78.4
Below Grade 10 education 88.3
Participating in or wait-listed for programs 94.9

LSCP referral source

Offenders were referred to the LSCP from several different sources. However, as Table 4 illustrates the majority of referrals (72%) came through education while an additional 19% were referred either through the National Parole Board or through or a program facilitator.

Table 4: LSCP referral source

Source of referral Program participants (n=117)
%
Education 71.8
Program facilitator 9.4
National Parole Board 9.4
Self 3.2
Intake Assessment Process 2.5
Psychologist 0.9
Native Liaison Officer 0.9
Regional file review 0.9
Security 0.9

Note. Due to missing data, results pertaining to referral source are based on a reduced sample size.

Reason for LSCP referral

As summarized in Table 5 the largest proportion of individuals were referred to the LSCP to address problems in reading and/or writing (26.5%), followed by problems in math (20.6%) and memory (10.8%).

Table 5: Reasons for referral to the LSCP

Reason for referral Program participants (n=102)
%
Problems with reading/writing 26.5
Problems with math 20.6
Problems with memory/retention 10.8
Suspected learning disability 9.8
Problems with organization and coping 9.8
Problems with attention/concentration 6.8
Problems following/understanding directions 5.9
Problems with assignment completion 4.9
Preparation for corrections program 3.9
Lack of learning strategies and self-esteem 1.0

Note. Due to missing data, results pertaining to reason for referral are based on a reduced sample size.

LSCP participants

Of the original 119 referrals, 22 individuals did not enrol in the LSCP for various reasons. For example, further in-depth testing by the LSCP teachers revealed that at least 11 individuals were not suitable candidates for the program. The LSCP teachers classified six additional individuals as suitable candidates but were wait-listed due to unavailability of space. The remaining five individuals were not enrolled in the LSCP for various reasons, ranging from behavioural problems to simply refusing to participate. In sum, 97 offenders participated in the LSCP.

Descriptive information

Descriptive information pertaining to the 97 LSCP participants is provided in Table 6. As illustrated the typical LSCP participant was 31 years old and serving a 5½-year sentence in a medium-security institution. Moreover, the majority of participants were found in the Ontario (Collins Bay Institution) and Prairie (Saskatchewan Penitentiary) regions. Additionally, Aboriginal offenders (32%) comprised a large proportion of the LSCP participants. Consequently, Aboriginal-specific results are presented throughout this report when appropriate. Lastly, 4 of the 97 participants were women.

Table 6: Characteristics of LSCP participants

Variable Total samplea
(n=97)
Mean (SD)b		 Aboriginal sub-sample
(n=31)
Mean (SD)
Age 31.0 (8.1) 30.1 (8.6)
Sentence length (in months)c 65.1 (47.2) 53.4 (25.7)
  % %
Ethnicity    
Caucasian 55.6 –
Black 12.4 –
Aboriginal 32.0 100.0
Region    
Atlantic 18.5 6.5
Quebec 11.3 –
Ontario 24.8 9.6
Prairies 28.9 71.0
Pacific 16.5 12.9
Institution    
Dorchester 18.5 6.5
La Macaza 2.1 –
Collins Bay 24.7 9.6
Saskatchewan Penitentiary 28.9 71.0
Mission 16.5 12.9
Cowansville 9.3 –
Security Level    
Medium 95.9 90.3
Maximum 4.1 9.7

Note. a includes Aboriginal participants (n=31). b SD = standard deviation. c Sentence length includes determinate sentence only. However, nine individuals in the LSCP program, including four Aboriginals, were serving life sentences.

Offence type

As Table 7 demonstrates, the LSCP participants were serving time for a wide range of violent as well as non-violent offences. This trend was particularly pronounced among the Aboriginal LSCP participants.

Table 7: Offence characteristics of LSCP participants

Offence Type Total samplea
(n=97)
%		 Aboriginal sub-sample
(n=31)
%
Homicide 17.5 25.8
Attempted murder 2.1 -
Sexual crime 8.3 16.1
Assault and/or robbery 59.8 51.6
Kidnapping/forcible confinement 7.2 12.9
Conspiracy 3.1 -
Arson - -
Weapon 14.4 -
Break and enter 24.7 25.8>
Drug-related 14.4 6.5
Otherb 62.9 51.6

Note. Percentages exceed 100% given that offence categories are not mutually exclusive. aincludes Aboriginal participants (n=31). bThe "other" category includes a wide range of non-violent offences such as fraud, vandalism, motor vehicle offences, and obstructing justice.

Risk and need level

Results of the intake process revealed that most of the LSCP participants were either high risk or high need (see Table 8).

Table 8: Program participants’ risk and need levels

Variable Total samplea
(n=97)
%		 Aboriginal sub-sample
(n=31)
%
Risk  
Low risk 2.1 –
Moderate risk 35.1 20.0
High risk 62.8 80.0
Need    
Low need - –
Moderate need 21.3 3.3
High need 78.7 96.7

Note. aincludes Aboriginal participants (n=31).

Academic needs of the LSCP participants

The academic problem areas identified for the LSCP referrals are reported below in Table 9. Individuals referred to the LSCP tended to have multiple academic problems, with difficulties in concentration, writing, and memory among the most frequent. Interestingly, math difficulties were somewhat more pronounced among the Aboriginal sub-sample.

Table 9: Academic areas requiring support

Academic area Total samplea (n=78)
%		 Aboriginal sub-sample (n=30)
%
Reading 32.1 20.0
Writing 46.2 33.3
Math 38.5 56.7
Spelling 37.2 30.0
Concentration/attention 53.9 43.3
Memory 47.4 43.3
Organization 30.8 6.7
Comprehension 7.7 –
Other 10.3 –

Note. aIncludes Aboriginals (n=30). Due to missing data, results pertaining to academic areas requiring support are based on a reduced sample size. Percentages exceed 100% given that academic categories are not mutually exclusive.

Correctional program needs of the LSCP participants

Interestingly, the vast majority of individuals (92.3%) were referred to the LSCP because they were having difficulty meeting their educational programming requirements. This finding was also evident for the Aboriginal sub-sample. However, individuals were also referred to the LSCP for experiencing difficulties related to employment and substance abuse programming (see Table 10). A brief description of each program outlined in the table is provided in Appendix K.

Table 10: Correctional programs requiring support

Type of program Total samplea (n=78)
%		 Aboriginal sub-sample (n=30)
%
Employment 12.8 3.3
Education 92.3 90.0
Ethnocultural 1.3 3.3
Substance abuse 11.5 10.0
Violence prevention 2.6 3.3
Family violence 1.3 –
Cognitive skills 7.7 6.7
Parenting skills – –
Living without violence – –
Anger management – –
Leisure skills 3.9 –
Sex offender – –
Other 2.3 3.3

Note. aIncludes Aboriginals (n=30). Due to missing data, results pertaining to programs requiring support are based on a reduced sample size.

LSCP non-completers

Of the 97 participants who began the LSCP Program, 20 participants failed to complete the program. Two of the 20 non-completers were women. Five participants dropped out the program voluntarily and three were expelled. Additionally, four participants were transferred to another institution before program completion, two were placed in segregation, and two were released prior to program completion. The remaining four individuals did not complete the program for medical reasons, a lack of progression, attendance issues, or because of a job change. A comparison between the completers and non-completers on a number of variables revealed that they were essentially similar in terms of age, sentence length, risk and need. For example, the average age of the program completers (M = 31.3, SD = 8.5) was similar to the program non-completers (M = 29.6, SD = 6.6). Similarly, the mean sentence length (in months) did not differ significantly between completers (M = 60.6, SD = 43.0) and non-completers (M = 83.5, SD = 60.0). However, differences were observed in regard to region. For example, higher proportions of non-completers were observed in the Prairies and Atlantic regions. See Table 11 for a complete overview.

Table 11: Sample characteristics: program completers vs. non-completers

Sample characteristics Completers (n=77)
%		 Non-completers (n=20)
%
Aboriginal 32.5 30.0
Region    
Atlantic 15.6 30.0
Quebec 11.7 10.0
Ontario 25.9 20.0
Prairies 27.3 35.0
Pacific 19.5 5.0
Institution    
Dorchester 15.6 30.0
La Macaza 2.6 –
Collins Bay 25.9 20.0
Saskatchewan Penn 27.3 35.0
Mission 19.5 5.0
Cowansville 9.1 10.0
Security level    
Minimum 2.6 –
Medium 94.8 90.0
Maximum 2.6 10.0
Risk    
Low risk 2.6 –
Moderate risk 34.7 36.8
High risk 62.7 63.2
Need    
Low need – –
Moderate need 20.0 26.3
High need 80.0 73.7

Results

Characteristics of the LSCP

Time spent in the LSCP

Program participants spent anywhere from 1 to 120 hours in the LSCP, with the average inmate investing 45 hours of their time. Originally, the calculation of time spent in the LSCP was in days; however, due to regional discrepancies in the meaning of a "day", hours were used instead. These hours were distributed throughout several days or weeks, depending on the participant and their specific needs and circumstances. However, on average, each participant spent 3.4 days each week in the LSCP classroom. The teachers spent the remaining time engaged in a range of areas including assessment-related matters and class preparation.

Specific LSCP targets

At the beginning of the program, the student and teacher worked together to identify specialized need areas that would form the basis of each participant’s individualized intervention plan. As Table 12 illustrates, academic achievement (for example, math, writing, reading) emerged as an intervention target for all of the participants. Similarly, organization (59.7%), memory (53.2%), and concentration (46.8%) skills also emerged as common intervention targets among the participants. Less common LSCP targets included money management (1.3%), goal setting (1.3%) and parole board preparation (1.3%).

Table 12: Specific LSCP targets

Target need area %
(n=77
Academics 100.0
Organization 59.7
Memory 53.2
Concentration 46.8
Communication/listening 23.4
Comprehension/understanding 10.4
Work-related tasks 9.1
Assignment/homework completion 2.6
Money management 1.3
Setting goals 1.3
Parole board preparation 1.3

Note. Percentages exceed 100% as more than one area of need could be identified for each program participant.

Participants’ primary goals

In addition to the specialized need areas discussed above, the teacher and student also worked together to identify primary goals that tended to be largely academic in nature. The most commonly identified primary goals were gains in reading/writing skills (36.4%), gains in memory and retention (23.4%), and gains in organization and thinking (20.8%). The least frequently identified goals included gains in listening, social cognition and money management (see Table 13).

Table 13: Participants’ primary goals

Primary goal identified %
(n=77
Gain reading and/or writing skills 36.4
Gain memory and retention skills 23.4
Gain organization and thinking skills 20.8
Gain comprehension and understanding skills 16.9
Gain attention and concentration skills 15.6
Gain oral and communication skills 7.8
Gain math skills 6.5
Gain skills that aid in homework and program completion 3.9
Gain listening skills 1.3
Gain social cognition skills 1.3
Gain money management skills 1.3

Note. Percentages exceed 100% as more than one primary goal could be identified for each program participant.

Participants’ secondary goals

In addition to the identification of primary goals, the teacher and student also identified a series of secondary goals. The most common secondary goals were improvements in reading/writing (24.7%), math (23.4%), and organization and thinking (10.4%). Less frequently identified secondary goals included obtaining the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) (5.2%), gaining skills in problem solving (5.2%) and listening (3.9%). See Table 14 for a detailed overview.

Table 14: Participants’ secondary goals

Secondary goal identified %
(n=77)
Gain reading and/or writing skills 24.7
Gain math skills 23.4
Gain organization and thinking skills 10.4
Gain memory and retention skills 9.1
Gain attention and concentration skills 7.8
Gain oral and communication skills 6.5
Pass the GED 5.2
Gain skills that aid in program completion 5.2
Gain research and problem-solving skills 5.2
Gain listening skills 3.9

Note. Percentages exceed 100% as more than one secondary goal could be identified for each program participant.

Prescribed learning strategies

In 40% of the cases (n=30), the LSCP teacher prescribed a variety of learning strategies that would help facilitate the program participants in meeting their program goals and specialized areas for intervention. As Table 15 demonstrates, Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA) was the most frequently prescribed learning strategy (66.7%), followed by mapping (10.0%) and accommodations (10.0%). Mapping is a specific teaching method that helps the student translate abstract concepts into concrete terms. It should be noted that CEA was prescribed only in the Prairie region.

Table 15: Prescribed learning strategies

Learning strategy %
(n=30)
Cognitive Enrichment Advantage 66.7
Mapping 10.0
Accommodations/assistive technologies 10.0
Brainstorming 6.7
Stress management 3.3
Motivation strategies 3.3

Prescribed accommodations and assistive technologies

Accommodations and assistive technologies can be used either as a learning strategy in and of themselves or as elements that facilitate the use of other strategies. They are distinctive from one another in that accommodations include any method or tool used to achieve an objective. In contrast, an assistive technology is a specific type of accommodation that is technological in nature (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 1999). In sum, 72.7% of the LSCP participants (n=56) were prescribed accommodations while 74.0% (n=57) were prescribed assistive technologies (see Tables 16 and 17, respectively).

It should be noted that because of the similarity between the concepts of accommodations and assistive technologies, assistive technologies were sometimes identified as an accommodation by the LSCP teachers. The most popular forms of accommodations included calculators and math charts/tables, index and cue cards, and highlighters and coloured pens. The most prevalent assistive technologies included computer programs, calculators, and tape recorders.

Table 16: Accommodations used by participants

Type of accommodation %
(n=56)
Calculator or math chart/table 35.7
Index/cue cards 35.7
Highlighters/coloured pens 28.6
Time management and/or relaxation 16.1
Calendar 10.7
Organizer, journal or agenda 10.7
Dictionary and/or thesaurus 10.7
Working in small groups 10.7
Computer programs 8.9
Tutoring 7.1
Tape recorder 5.4
Fewer questions per page 1.8

Note. Percentages exceed 100% as more than one accommodation could be identified for each participant.

Table 17: Assistive technologies used by participants

Type of assistive technology %
(n=57)
Computer and computer software 66.7
Calculator 26.3
Tape recorder 14.0
Electronic dictionary 3.5
Hand-held spell checker 1.7
Books on tape 1.7

Note. Percentages exceed 100% as more than one assistive technology could be identified for each participant.

Observed behavioural change before and after LSCP participation

Observed change in academic skill set

The extent to which the LSCP participants evidenced change in four areas of academic achievement—reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics—was measured based on a series of yes/no items (see the LSCP Research Protocol, Appendix J). Changes in reading ability were assessed across three domains: language (13 items, such as "difficulty with rhyming"), memory (19 items, for example, "poor paragraph recall") and visual (7 items, such as "difficulty focussing on the page"). Similarly, changes in writing were assessed across the same three domains: language (10 items, for example, "uses improper verb tenses"), memory (3 items, including "difficulty recalling events") and visual (5 items, such as "poor letter spacing"). Likewise, spelling was assessed across a language domain (6 items, for example, "mispronunciations") and a visual memory domain (21 items, including "omission of silent letters"). Lastly, changes in math performance were based on a 25 item yes/no scale (for example, the student can carry out "simple one-digit addition"). Standardized academic achievement tests (such as the Canadian Academic Achievement Test [CAAT]) were used to determine whether or not change had actually occurred across the individual items. However, in some cases, progress in academic skill set was assessed through the use of informal methods (for example, sample textbook exercises).

The relatively small sample size (n=77) coupled with the unique pattern of academic deficits within the sample resulted in rather small numbers for analysis purposes. For example, only 6 of the 77 individuals were initially assessed as having difficulties in the language sub-component of reading. Consequently, the change analysis for this variable was restricted solely to these 6 cases, rendering the analysis unreliable. Statistical analysis was conducted only where the sample size exceeded 15 cases: the language sub-component of the writing domain and the mathematics domain. Interestingly, in both cases, the observed improvements were statistically significant (Table 18). However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in light of the small sample size. Mean scores are not presented for the Aboriginal sub-sample due to excessively low numbers (n ranged from 0 to 8 across each sub-scale).

Table 18: Total sample: changes in academic performance

Problem area n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Reading      
Language 6 20.1 21.1
Memory 4 12.2 13.1
Visual 6 10.3 11.4
Writing      
Language* 16 13.8 15.3
Memory 10 4.1 3.8
Visual 13 6.9 7.7
Spelling      
Language 11 6.6 6.9
Visual memory 7 29.9 30.7
Mathematics** 15 28.2 35.8

Note.* p <.05, ** p < .01. Statistical change analyses were not conducted on those sub-scales with a sample size less than 15. The means are simply presented for descriptive purposes.

Observed change in communication skills

Observed change in communication skills was assessed across three domains: oral skills (18 items, for example "does not stay on topic"), listening skills (2 items, including "difficulty remembering what is heard") and attention skills (5 items, such as "difficulty staying on task"). Each item was rated using a yes/no response. In sum, a modest improvement was observed in attention skills. However, caution is in order due to the small sample size (see Table 19). Once again, the means for the Aboriginal sub-sample are not reported due to excessively low numbers (n ranged from 0 to 8 across each sub-scale).

Table 19: Total sample: change in communication skills

Area of communication n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Oral communication 5 27.3 29.1
Listening skills 14 2.5 2.8
Attention skills* 25 4.6 5.2

Note. * p < .05. Statistical change analyses were not conducted on those sub-scales with a sample size less than 15. The means are simply presented for descriptive purposes.

Observed change in organizational skills

Organizational skills were assessed on a three-point scale comprising the following variables: 1) organization in general; 2) organization of time; and 3) organization of materials. For those individuals who were originally assessed as having a deficit in this area (n=21), a marginal yet significant level of improvement was observed (Pre-LSCP mean score=4.7; post-LSCP mean score=5.0, p < .05). A similar analysis was not conducted for the Aboriginal sub-sample due to the small number of Aboriginals with deficits in this area (n=7).

Observed change in correctional program performance

A twelve-item measure was used to assess the degree to which an offender exhibited change in his/performance in other correctional programs. In the case of multiple program enrolment, LSCP teachers rated the correctional program with which the offender experienced the highest degree of difficulty. Sample items include "attendance/punctuality", "full and active participation" and "completion of assignments" (see Table 20 for all 12 items). The LSCP teachers were further instructed to rate each item on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (excellent) to 4 (poor) based on program performance reports that were completed by the program officers. Thus, total scores could potentially have ranged from 12 to 48 with higher scores reflecting higher degrees of negative program performance.

The statistical analysis (paired t-test) indicated that the correctional program performance of the LSCP participants improved significantly after having completed the LSCP (Mean total score pre-LSCP: 26.0; mean total score post-LSCP: 22.1, p < .05). Twelve individual analyses (paired t-tests) were also conducted to identify which specific items evidenced the most change. As Table 20 illustrates, all of the items evidenced significant change with the exception of safety practices. A similar trend emerged for the Aboriginal sub-sample (Table 21).

Table 20: Total sample: changes in correctional program participation

Program performance variable n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Attendance/punctuality* 75 1.9 1.6
Full and active participation**** 75 2.0 1.6
Completion of assignments**** 74 2.2 1.7
Interpersonal relationships** 74 2.0 1.8
Attitude**** 76 2.1 1.7
Behaviour**** 76 2.0 1.7
Effort**** 76 2.2 1.7
Motivation**** 76 2.2 1.7
Responsibility**** 75 2.2 1.7
Problem solving**** 72 2.4 1.9
Communication skills**** 74 2.3 1.7
Safety practices 11 2.1 1.9

Note. Sample size (n) varies due to variable missing data for each item. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; **** p < .0001.

Table 21: Aboriginal sub-sample: changes in correctional program participation

Program performance variable n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Attendance/punctuality 24 2.2 2.0
Full and active participation* 24 2.2 1.8
Completion of assignments*** 24 2.5 1.8
Interpersonal relationships* 24 2.3 2.0
Attitude* 25 2.3 1.8
Behaviour* 25 2.2 1.8
Effort** 25 2.5 2.0
Motivation** 25 2.5 2.0
Responsibility**** 24 2.6 1.9
Problem solving** 24 2.7 2.1
Communication skills** 25 2.6 1.9
Safety practices 0 - -

Note. Sample size (n) varies due to variable missing data for each item. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; **** p < .0001.

Observed change in general negative behaviour

A 16-item measure assessed the degree to which an offender displayed general negative behaviour that could interfere with successful program completion. Sample items include "insults/swears at others", "very demanding/rude" and "demonstrates aggression towards others, self or objects" (see Table 22 for all 16 items). The LSCP teachers were instructed to rate each item on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (never exhibits behaviour) to 4 (often exhibits behaviour) using a variety of information sources including accounts from parole officers, program delivery officers, correctional officers and their own personal observations. Thus, total scores could potentially have ranged from 16 to 64 with higher scores reflecting higher degrees of negative behaviour. This measure was administered prior to and after participation in the LSCP.

The results of the paired t-test analysis indicated that there was a significant decrease in the amount of negative behaviour displayed by the LSCP participants (Mean total score pre-LSCP: 31.8; mean total score post-LSCP: 27.5, p < .0001). Similarly, Aboriginal participants also demonstrated a significant decrease in the amount of negative behaviour (Mean total score pre-LSCP: 34.4; mean total score post-LSCP: 29.1, p < .05).

Sixteen separate paired t-tests were conducted to identify which of the individual items accounted for the change. As Table 22 illustrates, all of the indicators exhibited some degree of significant change with the exception of "inappropriate emotions to events", "flat, listless, feeling down", and "inappropriate attention to self care". Most notable were the observed changes for "displays inappropriate energy levels", "insults/swears at others" and "sullen/limited remarks".

Table 22: Total sample: changes in general negative behaviour

Negative behaviour n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Threatens aggression towards others, self or objects* 69 1.8 1.6
Is aggressive towards others, self or objects** 66 1.8 1.5
Displays inappropriate energy levels**** 71 2.2 1.8
Insults/swears at others**** 72 1.8 1.5
Very demanding/rude*** 73 1.9 1.6
Talkative/difficult to interrupt** 74 2.1 1.8
Sullen, limited remarks**** 74 2.2 1.7
Inappropriate emotions to events 65 2.0 2.0
Flat, listless, feeling down 72 2.2 2.2
Inappropriate attention to self-care 72 1.5 1.4
Interacts negatively*** 73 2.2 1.9
Does not initiate social interaction with peers** 62 2.2 1.8
Does not initiate social interaction with staff*** 71 2.2 1.8
Does not attend activities*** 52 2.0 1.6
Impulsive** 71 2.7 2.4
Anxious** 70 3.0 2.7

Note. Sample size (n) varies due to variable missing data for each item. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; **** p < .0001.

Similar trends were observed for the Aboriginal sub-sample (see Table 23). However, the degree of statistically significant change was less in comparison with the total sample. It is important to note that the lack of statistical significant findings for the Aboriginal sub-sample is most likely due to the small number of Aboriginals, as statistical significance is inversely related to sample size.

Table 23: Aboriginal sub-sample: change in general negative behaviour

Negative behaviour n Pre-LSCP mean score Post-LSCP mean score
Threatens aggression towards others, self or objects 23 2.0 1.9
Is aggressive towards others, self or objects* 22 2.0 1.7
Displays inappropriate energy levels 24 2.8 2.3
Insults/swears at others** 25 2.1 1.8
Very demanding/rude* 25 2.2 1.9
Talkative/difficult to interrupt 25 2.2 2.0
Sullen, limited remarks*** 25 2.6 2.0
Inappropriate emotions to events* 20 2.4 2.2
Flat, listless, feeling down* 25 2.7 2.3
Inappropriate attention to self–care 25 1.5 1.3
Interacts negatively** 25 2.5 2.1
Does not initiate social interaction with peers 18 2.5 2.3
Does not initiate social interaction with staff** 24 2.6 2.2
Does not attend activities 12 2.1 1.9
Impulsive* 24 3.0 2.6
Anxious 24 3.0 2.7

Note. Sample size (n) varies due to variable missing data for each item. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; **** p < .0001.

Observed change in prison misconducts

A preliminary analysis examined whether or not the number of prison misconducts decreased as a function of the LSCP. No change was observed in the number of prison misconducts committed by the LSCP participants three months prior to the LSCP (Mean=0.4, range 0 to 2) and the number of prison misconducts committed three months after the LSCP (Mean=0.4, range 0 to 4).

Transfer of LSCP skills to other correctional programs

The LSCP teachers reported that 88% of the total sample as well as 88% of the Aboriginal sub-sample were applying the skills and strategies obtained in during the LSCP to other correctional programming. LSCP skills were most frequently being applied to educational programming followed by employment and substance abuse programming (see Table 24). Similar trends were observed for the Aboriginal sub-sample.

Table 24: Application of LSCP learning strategies to other correctional programs

Other institutional program Total sample
%		 Aboriginal sub-sample
%
Employment 19.1 4.5
Educational 86.8 90.9
Ethnocultural 2.9 4.5
Substance abuse 16.2 13.7
Violence prevention 4.4 4.5
Family violence 1.5 4.5
Cognitive skills 2.9 4.5
Parenting skills 0.0 0.0
Living without violence 1.5 0.0
Anger/emotion management 2.9 0.0
Leisure skills 2.9 4.5
Sex offender 0.0 0.0
Othera 7.4 9.1

Note. Percentages do not add up to 100 as participants could be enrolled in more than one institutional program. aOther Programs include work placement, methadone program, parole board, and Aboriginal programming.

Post-LSCP teacher evaluation

The teachers indicated that 90% of the LSCP participants achieved their primary goal while 79% achieved their secondary goal. Similarly, 92% and 80% of the Aboriginal participants achieved their primary and secondary goals, respectively. Reasons given for failure to obtain program goals were similar in both groups and included factors such as poor attendance, inability to apply learned strategies, lack of motivation, and lack of focus.

Offender’s self-report evaluation of the LSCP

The participants completed a 20-item questionnaire regarding the LSCP in terms of delivery, implementation, and effectiveness (see Tables 25 and 26). Overall, the entire sample, and the Aboriginal participants in particular, reported favourable opinions and experiences with the LSCP. Both groups were particularly impressed with the helpfulness of the program as well as with the way the program was planned. The majority of both groups found the program only moderately difficult. Likewise, both groups felt the amount of assistance, discussions, tests, and session length were "just right", although a large amount of both groups felt that the length of the program itself was too short and that the program could benefit from more group discussion. The majority of program participants (both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) felt the manner in which the program was delivered was well done. Overall, participants felt supported, encouraged and validated by the program.

Table 25: Total sample: participant evaluation of the LSCP

Element of LSCP program Low %
(n=77)		 Moderate %
(n=77)		 High %
(n=77)
Overall, the program was:      
High quality 1.3 29.9 68.8
Interesting 5.2 26.0 68.8
Difficult 9.1 57.1 33.8
Enjoyable 7.8 33.8 58.4
Helpful 2.6 15.6 81.8
Well planned 1.3 22.1 76.6
Amount of the following was: Too little %
(n=77)		 Just right %
(n=77)		 Too much %
(n=77)
Assistance/info provided 3.9 94.8 1.3
Group discussions 40.3 57.1 2.6
Tests 24.7 75.3 –
Length of each session 14.3 85.7 –
Length of program 31.2 68.3 –
Program delivery: Not at all %
(n=77)		 Somewhat %
(n=77)		 Very much %
(n=77)
Kept me interested 1.3 37.7 61.0
Treated me with fairness 1.3 9.1 89.6
Supported my changes – 14.3 85.7
Gave appropriate feedback – 19.5 80.5
Encouraged me to talk 3.9 28.6 67.5
Validated my contributions 2.6 20.8 76.6

Table 26: Aboriginal sub-sample: participant evaluation of the LSCP

Element of LSCP program Low %
(n=25)		 Moderate %
(n=25)		 High %
(n=25)
Overall, the program was:      
High quality 4.0 44.0 52.0
Interesting 16.0 48.0 36.0
Difficult 12.0 64.0 24.0
Enjoyable 20.0 48.0 32.0
Helpful 4.0 36.0 60.0
Well planned 4.0 32.0 64.0
Amount of the following was: Too little %
(n=25)		 Just right %
(n=25)		 Too much %
(n=25)
Assistance/info provided 4.0 96.0 -
Group discussions 36.0 56.0 8.0
Tests 20.0 80.0 -
Length of each session 20.0 80.0 -
Length of program 36.0 64.0 -
Program delivery: Not at all %
(n=25)		 Somewhat %
(n=25)		 Very much %
(n=25)
Kept me interested 4.0 56.0 40.0
Treated me with fairness 4.0 4.0 92.0
Supported my changes 12.0 88.0 -
Gave appropriate feedback 12.0 88.0 -
Encouraged me to talk 4.0 48.0 48.0
Validated my contributions 4.0 40.0 56.0

Observed maintenance of LSCP effects over time

The extent to which the LSCP participants continued using the strategies learned during the LSCP was assessed at three intervals: 4 weeks post-LSCP, 8 weeks post-LSCP and 12 weeks post-LSCP. Additionally, the extent to which the participants evidenced increased ability in the application of their unique learning strategies was also measured at the same intervals. Each variable (continued use and increased ability) was scored yes or no based on the teacher’s evaluation of whether or not they believed the student had demonstrated either skill set. As Table 27 indicates, the level of increased ability and continued use decreased over time for both groups. However, it is noteworthy that 57.7% of the total sample and 38.9% of the Aboriginal sub-sample were still applying their LSCP strategies four months after the program had ended.

Table 27: Maintenance of LSCP effects over time

Time of follow-up Increased ability % Continued use %
4 Weeks  
Entire sample (n=59) 71.2 69.5
Aboriginal sub-sample (n=22) 88.0 54.6
8 Weeks  
Entire sample (n=57) 57.9 57.9
Aboriginal sub-sample (n=21) 42.8 42.8
12 Weeks  
Entire sample (n=52 57.7 57.7
Aboriginal sub-sample (n=18) 38.9 38.9

DISCUSSION

In sum, this report describes the results of the pilot educational program, the Learning Strategies Classroom Program (LSCP). The primary objective of the LSCP was to assist offenders with LD succeed in other correctional programs.

Study highlights

  • In total, 77 offenders (75 men and 2 women) housed in medium-security institutions from across the country completed the LSCP. Initially, 97 offenders started the program; however, 20 did not complete for various reasons including personal choice, expulsion and institutional transfer. Additionally, 40% of the LSCP completers were Aboriginal.
  • The LSCP was highly successful in helping offenders with LD improve their performance in other correctional programs designed specifically to reduce the risk of recidivism. More specifically, a statistical analysis of change that compared the behaviour of LSCP participants in a correctional program before and after the LSCP revealed that offenders made highly significant gains in the following areas: degree of active participation, completion of assignments, attitude, behaviour, effort, motivation, responsibility, problem solving and communication skills. Similar trends, but not as pronounced, were found for Aboriginals. It is important to emphasize that the less pronounced differences for Aboriginals were in all likelihood due to a statistical artefact rather than any genuine differences. For example, while the magnitude of observed change for the Aboriginal sub-sample was often similar to that of the entire sample, the degree of statistical significance was often reduced. Statistical significance is inversely related to sample size in that it is much easier to finding statistically significant results with large samples. In contrast, it is much more difficult to find significance when smaller samples are used.
  • The LSCP teachers reported that 88% of the program participants as well as 88% of the Aboriginal sub-sample showed evidence of using the skills and strategies acquired through the LSCP in other correctional programs. These results also suggest that the participants had begun to personally recognize their disability.
  • No significant differences were found in terms of the number of prison misconducts committed by the LSCP participants prior to and after the LSCP. It is possible that a longer follow-up may have generated more positive results.
  • A significant reduction in the amount of general negative behaviour was observed as a result of the LSCP. More specifically, reductions in the following areas were noted post-LSCP: "displays inappropriate energy levels", "insults/swears at others", "very demanding/rude", "sullen/limited remarks", "negative interactions" and "does not initiate social interaction with staff". Once again, similar trends, albeit less pronounced, were found among the Aboriginals. The decrease in "sullen and limited remarks" is particularly important because it suggests an increase in self-esteem and self-confidence. Additionally, it suggests an increase in the willingness to take risks and to be more open in discussions, which in turn promotes a higher level of participation in programs. The decrease in "insults and swearing" is also important given that this type of behaviour is considered relatively normal in a correctional setting. This change implies that the LSCP participants evidenced a greater understanding of the LD and that they had successfully learned to transfer their newly obtained strategies to elements of daily living.
  • Due to low frequency counts, it was difficult to assess to what extent the LSCP had an impact on previously identified problem areas in academics. Generally, no change was observed with the exception of mathematics. Math abilities significantly improved post-LSCP among those individuals who had a specific LD in math. Additionally, a marginal improvement was noted for the language component of the writing domain. The results for Aboriginals were not examined due to excessively low frequency counts. It is important to highlight however that improvement in academic achievement measured by standardized achievement tests will not necessarily be observed. The issue is that LD prevents the student from completing assignments by traditional means. Reading strategies that involve the use of a tape recorder for example will allow the student to complete his homework assignments but will not enhance reading ability per se. However, in other domains such as math, improvements are expected to occur. For example, if a student was to be referred to the LSCP because of a math LD (for example, inability to memorize basic number rules) with the use of an accommodation such as a computer, memorization is no longer an issue and the math problem can now be solved.
  • LSCP also had a slight impact on improving attention and organizational skills.
  • Overall, the LSCP participants, particularly the Aboriginals, reported favourable opinions and experiences with the LSCP.
  • Finally, while there was some evidence that program participants retained the skills learnt through LSCP after program completion, a large portion did not. This was particularly true at the four-month post-LSCP assessment phase.

Standardization issues

A number of issues arose throughout the study relating to standardization and consistency in application of both the assessment and intervention strategy of LD. First, regional variation was observed in terms of the proportion of offenders flagged as being at risk for LD. For example, the prevalence of LD appears to be lower in the Ontario and Pacific regions but higher in the Quebec and Atlantic regions. Lastly, the prevalence rate of LD in the Prairie region is commensurate with what would be expected based on the number of offenders housed in the Prairie region. Whether these differences reflect true variations in the prevalence of LD or rather regional inconsistencies in the application of the assessment process requires further investigation.

In terms of the LSCP itself, it was difficult to assess to what degree teachers were doing the same thing across regions, largely because the personal nature of LD requires different strategies and accommodations. In the future, this issue could be assessed by having two different teachers independently assess the same offender and prescribe an intervention strategy. To what degree the two teachers agree is one method of assessing standardization. However, it should be noted that the training, bimonthly conference calls and on-site visits ensured that the teachers followed the same basic procedures in the LSCP. However, it is important to underscore one key difference: the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA) teaching method was only used in the Prairie region. The potential application of CEA across the country requires further investigation.

Best practices / lessons learned

The developmental strategy philosophy developed by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) under contract with CSC performed exceptionally well in guiding the LSCP approach. Additionally, the close working relationship that was developed and fostered between the intake screening personnel and the LSCP teachers was very successful. The monitoring and quality assurance mechanisms that comprised the LSCP pilot study were effective in ensuring clarity and data entry accuracy. Specifically, the two face-to-face training sessions that occurred between the National Advisory committee and the LSCP teachers and Intake screening personnel were beneficial insofar as each group was able to work collectively to resolve disparities. The bimonthly conference calls also allowed for airing of difficulties and resolution of protocol problems.

A formal assessment of LD requires a neuro-psychologist and approximately two to four days of testing and costs in the vicinity of $2,000.00. The process CSC employed has been anecdotally accepted by institutional and community-based psychologists. They report that the information derived from the process is substantial and accurate and can be used as the basis for intervention. For this reason, it was decided to use the formal assessment only for those cases in which the CSC-designed process did not elucidate the LD or its extent. As this did not happen, the formal assessments were not used.

The CBC Television Network asked to have the LSCP in Ontario Region as the focal point of an edition of their program, Moving On. The segment aired in July, 2003. The LSCP was selected because CBC views the LSCP as a best practice that will further increase the links between the community and CSC.

More recently, a soon-to-be released LSCP participant was accepted into the program "Destination: Employment". This program is conducted by the Learning Disabilities Association of Alberta (LDAA) in Calgary and is designed to assist participants in learning appropriate accommodation skills in the workplace, and to teach both employee and employer about advocacy for LD workers. Because of the quality of the LSCP reports, the neuro-psychological assessment will be conducted by the LDAA. Confirmation of his LD will result in qualification of a federal grant that will allow him to purchase the accommodations he needs while pursuing Destination: Employment and other post-secondary education programs.

We failed to find a contractor who would use the philosophy to build a training manual for LSCP teachers. The request for proposal (RFP) process delayed the beginning of the pilot LSCP and also resulted in delaying the standardization of the intake screening process. Additionally, the brief loss of a research contact during the project was also problematic. While both issues resulted in unique challenges, the LSCP was nonetheless successful.

Unique challenges were observed in regard to women. The Prairie region was the only region that extended the LSCP project to include women. At the time of the LSCP pilot, the Saskatchewan Penitentiary still had a unit for Federally Sentenced Women (closed as of March 31, 2003). Consequently, it seemed logical to include them in the pilot. The LSCP teacher in the Prairie region received 10 women offender referrals from the regular classroom teacher. Four of these met the requirements for inclusion into the LSCP; however, two dropped out of the program before completion. All of the women were classified as maximum security. Additionally, they were largely incompatible with one another and thus the needs of each woman had to be addressed individually. The Prairie LSCP teacher also described the women as unpredictable and sensitive. These characteristics manifested themselves in sporadic attendance. Of the four women that were enrolled in the LSCP, only one attended regularly and worked hard to make gains. Consequently it was difficult to offer a cohesive and consistent program for the women participants. Lastly, it is important to underscore that the learning strategies developed and used by the women offenders were basically the same as those used by their male counterparts.

Recommendations

Although the LSCP is for those individuals with a potential LD, some students who are referred to the LSCP are low cognitive functioning. It would be reasonable, given the expertise of the LSCP teacher, for the LSCP teacher to make recommendations regarding learning strategies that might be successful for this type of student. Further monitoring through the classroom teacher would allow these students access to the special education expertise of the LSCP teacher without significantly adding to the workload.

The results of the LSCP pilot show a slight decrease in the use of the learning strategies and accommodations over time. A more positive influence in this trend could be achieved if there was a greater understanding of the LD by employers and other CSC staff. It is recommended that CSC launch a staff training initiative designed to increase awareness around LD for staff who work with both male and female offenders.

Recall that there was some evidence that the effects of the LSCP deteriorated over time. Consequently, it is also recommended that each LSCP graduate return to the LSCP for a "booster" session of two to three hours to assist in reinforcing his/her acquired learning strategies and accommodations.

It is recommended that further discussions occur regarding the potential usefulness of the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage (CEA) teaching method. Currently it is only being used in the Prairie region.

Lastly, it is recommended that further research be conducted to help refine the assessment process as well as the LSCP. Additionally, if the LSCP is implemented nationally, it is recommended that the Research Branch be involved in creating a built-in evaluation process to facilitate future evaluations.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC. Author.

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Andrews, D.A., Dowden, C. & Gendreau, P. (2002). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity and other concerns in justice contexts. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Bell, K., Conrad, E. & Suppa, R. (1984). The findings and recommendations of the National Study on Learning Disabilities in Adult Inmates. Journal of Correctional Education, 35 (4), 129–136.

Brier, N. (1994). Targeted treatment for adjudicated youth with learning disability: Effects on recidivism. Journal of Learning Disability, 27(4), 215–222.

Boe, R. (1998). A two year follow-up of federal offenders who participated in the adult basic education (ABE) program. Research Report (R-60). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Brown, S.L. (2002). The dynamic prediction of criminal behaviour: A three-wave prospective study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queen’s University, Kingston: Canada.

Conoley, J.C. & Impara, J.C. (Ed’s) (1995). Mental Measurements Yearbook (12th Ed). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Conoley, J.C. & Kramer, J.J. (Ed’s) (1989). Mental Measurements Yearbook (10th Ed). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Correctional Service of Canada (2000). Overview of correctional programs. Public Works and Government Service Canada (No. JS82-88/2000) June.

Correctional Service of Canada (2002). Learning strategy class program: Resource Guide. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Crealock, C.M. (1987). The Learning disability (LD) / juvenile delinquency (JD) link: Causation or correlation (No. 2987-16). Ottawa, ON: Research Division, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Dowden, C., Blanchette, K.D. & Serin, R.C. (1999). Anger management programming for federal male inmates: An effective intervention. (Research Report No. 82). Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa: Canada.

Fisher-Bloom, E. (1995). The impact of learning disabilities on correctional treatment.

Forum on Corrections Research, 7 (3), pp. 20–22.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Gray, G. (1998). Case need domain: Employment. Forum on Corrections Research, 10 (3), 16–19.

Gendreau, P., Little, T. & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.

Gendreau P. & Ross R. R., (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980’s. Justice Quarterly, 4, pp. 349–407.

Government of Canada (2002). Knowledge matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians.

Gregg, N., Hoy, C. & Gay A. F. (1996). Adults with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Herbert, J. P. (1988). Working with adults who have learning disabilities. Topeka: Kansas State Department of Education, Manhattan Adult Learning and Resource Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 237).

Impara, J.C. & Plake, B.S. (Ed’s) (1998). Mental Measurements Yearbook (13th Ed). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Learning disabilities: A report to the United States Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Johns Hopkins University. (2003). Counseling and Assessment: More About SCAT and STEP Testing. Available at: http://www.jhu/~gifted/dcc/dcc_sca2.html.

Kearns, A. (2001). Forensic services and people with learning disability: In the shadow of the Reed Report. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12, 8–12.

Kelly, T., Lyle, W. & Kirby, E. (1984). A learning disability in an inmate population. Journal of Correctional Education, 21 (1), 5–15.

Kramer, J.J. and Conoley, J.C. (Ed’s) (1992). Mental Measurements Yearbook (11th Ed). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) (2002). Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Available at: http://www.ldac-taac.ca/english/defined.htm.

Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) (2001). Destination Literacy: Identifying and Teaching Adults with Learning Disabilities. Available at: http://www.ldac-taac.ca/english/indepth/adults/destinat.htm.

Leschied, A. W. (2000). Correctional programs and allied initiatives: Young offenders. In

L. Motiuk (Ed.). Compendium on effective correctional research, Volume 2, Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Longfield, J. (2003). Raising adult literacy skills: The need for a Pan-Canadian response. A Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca.

Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 79–111). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Lysakowski, B. (1980). Incidence of learning disabilities in an inmate population in British Columbia. Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia (UBC).

Moke, P. & Halloway, J. (1986). Post secondary correctional education: Issues of functional illiteracy. Journal of Correctional Education, 37 (1), 18–22.

Morrison, G. & Cosden, M. (1997). Risk, resilience and adjustment of individuals with learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 43–60.

Motiuk, L.L. (1991). Antecedents and consequences of prison adjustment: A systematic assessment and re-assessment approach. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.

Motiuk, L.L., Boe, R., & Nafekh, M. (2003). The safe return of offenders to the community: Statistical Overview April 2003. Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa: Canada.

Pearson, F.S. & Lipton, D.S. (1999). The effectiveness of educational and vocational programs: CDATE meta-analyses. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.

Plake, B.S., & Impara, J.C. (Ed’s) (2001). Mental Measurements Yearbook (14th Ed). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Platt, J., Wieake, W. & Turnick, R. (1980). Education and vocational intervention with handicapped incarceration. Journal of Correctional Education, 31 (1), 16–17.

The Psychological Corporation. (2003). Canadian Adult Achievement Test. Available at: http://www.nald.ca/nls/inpub/test/English/page15.htm.

Smith, B., Ramiuez, B. & Rutherford, R. (1983). Special education in youth correctional facilities. Journal of Correctional Education, 34 (4), 108–112.

Stevens, D. J. (2001). Education programming for offenders. Chapter from Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Compendium 2001 on effective correctional programming. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Services Canada.

Stevens, D. J. (1998). Educating Offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Taylor, M.C. (2002). Workplace Literacy Assessment Tools. Available at: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/report4/rep36-40/REP36-01.HTM.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2001). Logic Model Development Guide. Retrieved June 16, 2003 from http://www.wkkf.org.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: LEARNING DISABILITY SURVEY

Part I: Assessment

Are assessments for learning disabilities conducted within your jurisdiction?

Yes
No

If NO, why?

If YES, when did you start screening for learning disabilities?

Less than 1 year ago
1–5 years ago
6–10 years ago
More than 10 years ago

Why did you start screening for learning disabilities?

Who performs the assessments?

Psychologists
Social workers
Psychiatrists
Other (specify): ________

What criteria, if any, do you use to identify offenders requiring a learning disability assessment?

Routine part of intake

Offender records

Offender self-identification

Referral from institutional program

Other (specify):

At what stage of incarceration is an offender assessed for learning disabilities?

Pre-sentence
Intake
Less than 6 months
More than 6 months
Other (specify): _________

What types of learning disabilities do you assess and what measures do you use? (If possible please attach a copy of the measure)

  Yes No Measure:
ADHD_____________
Dyslexia ______________
Reading/writing ______________
Non-verbal ______________
Other (specify): ____________________________________________

Why were these measures selected?

Part II: Intervention

Once an offender is identified with a learning disability, does your jurisdiction provide intervention?

Yes
No

If NO, why?

If YES, what types of services geared specifically towards offenders with learning disabilities are provided?

Reading and writing classes
Relaxation
Other (specify): ______

If you offer specialized programs for learning disabilities, please describe the program.

Do you evaluate your learning disability programs?

Yes
No

If NO, why? _______________

If YES, please describe the evaluation process and outcome. ______________

APPENDIX B: LD ASSESMENT and SCREENING PROCESS

Regional Intake

Ideal academic areas to be assessed for overall picture of offender learning needs

Phase 1 (regular academic tester at intake)

We believe that assessments in the six categories below are necessary for an overall view of the learning needs of all offenders, and we encourage regional intake to assess accordingly. But, we recognize that time and budget are considerations. Therefore, the "Academic areas to be assessed" will be considered the MINIMUM acceptable from Regional Intake education assessors.

Staff must be qualified to administer and assess all tests that they use.

Academic areas to be assessed

Math computations (number operations)

Reading comprehension

Math reasoning (problem solving)

Additional academic areas for ideal assessment

Dictated spelling*

Word recognition (decoding)

Demand writing*

Some recommended tools (You do not need all these tools):

WRAT-3 SOI

WIAT-II (selected subtests)

CAAT (selected subtests)

(Qualifications for administering and scoring assessments available from distributors)

Assessment information is needed in all six academic areas to make a well-rounded decision regarding possible learning needs of offenders. If a region uses a test battery with any of the additional two starred (*) subtests, they are encouraged to administer them.

NOTE: The CAAT is a group-administered assessment tool that can be used to collect some of the information. However, additional information is needed in order to ensure that we do not overlook offenders who should be referred for LD Screening. Although the WRAT-3 and the WIAT-II are tests that are usually administered individually, some of the subtests can be administered in small groups (4 to 6) in order to save time. The subtests that can be administered in small groups (marked with an asterisk above) are the dictated spelling task, math computation (number operations), and demand writing. The demand writing subtest on the WIAT-II has several components but ONLY the essay writing component should be given during Regional Intake. The other components can be given later during the LD Screening Phase if the offender is referred for further screening and it is deemed that current assessments are not enough to make an informed decision as to LD at-risk (this should not be a frequent occurrence).

This assessment procedure would benefit greatly from an assessment of offenders’ vision and hearing. Knowing whether or not offenders can see and hear within the normal range allows for further intervention where necessary to ensure effectiveness of correctional plan participation.

Criteria for being referred to the LD Screening Phase:

Less than Grade 10 in any academic area, AND

A discrepancy of two or more grade levels between any two academic areas.

There is no uniform grade discrepancy among LD screeners throughout North America, so we are using two grade levels at this stage to reduce the likelihood of missing a portion of the population.

Phase 2 (LD intake staff)

LD Screening Phase

(This screening phase is meant to be brief, but as thorough as is reasonable. You need to assess for LD at-risk, not diagnose. Use professional judgement to decide if and when you need to utilize additional measures)

Check OMS file for any pre-existing cognitive assessment information. This could include SILS, RAVENs, WAIS-R, WAIS-III, TAI, KAIT, WRIT or WASI scores which are no more than five years old.

If there is no current (or usable) cognitive assessment information, then a cognitive screening must be conducted. Two broad areas of functioning should be assessed:

i. verbal (language reasoning) skills

ii. non-verbal (performance) skills.

If only one of the two areas was previously assessed, then this data can be used but must be supplemented by testing in the other area. The assessment tools that are chosen will depend on screener’s qualifications regarding test administration and scoring. Instruments listed require equivalent documented training (details available from distributors).

Please understand that you do not need to order all of these tests. These are measures for cognitive abilities that may be used. If you currently have a cognitive measure, you do not need to supplement your resources (at this time for purposes of the pilot project).

VERBAL Functioning (any one or more of the following recommended tools):

(Various qualifications may be necessary):

K-BIT, TAI, SOI, SIT-R3, EHIM,

WAIS-III, WASI, WRIT, EVT, KAIT

NON-VERBAL Functioning (any one or more of the following recommended tools):

(Various qualifications may be necessary):

K-BIT, TONI-3, CTONI/CTONI-CA, BETA-III

TAI, EHIM, SOI, WAIS-III, WASI, WRIT, EVT, KAIT

If, and only if, additional academic information is needed to aid in the screening process (i.e., it is unclear as to the offender’s status thus far, but you feel it is important to go a bit further with testing), this information can be acquired by:

completing the remaining components of the demand writing subtest and the Pseudoword Subtest of the WIAT-II,

dictated spelling, word recognition (if not administered already)

4. Completion of the LDAC summary (LD checklist).

Criteria for raising at-risk LD flag

1. Overall cognitive standard score of 85 or higher

AND at least 2 of the following:

2. Discrepancy of at least 1 standard deviation and/or 15 standard score points or more (or equivalent alternate score) between verbal and non-verbal functioning based on cognitive assessment scores.

3. Discrepancy of at least 1 standard deviation and/or 15 standard score points or more (or equivalent alternate score) between at least one of the cognitive tests and at least one of the academic test scores. (This will give an indication of the offender’s working ability in the academic area in relation to their cognitive ability. For example, if an offender’s standard score is 90 on at least one measure of cognitive ability, but a standard score of 65 is obtained for math computation (or any other academic measure), then professional judgement would dictate that they are working below their ability level and perhaps LD may be the cause. Remember, there is a chart available to convert scores to Standard Scores. This is not a research measurement or a strict indicator/diagnosis of a LD, but it is a possible awareness point for people considering flagging for "at-risk").

4. Discrepancy of two or more grade levels between any two academic skills areas.

5. Additional information generated from LDAC summary checklist.

Offenders who have limited cognitive skills (below average) should not be considered to have LD. However, look for patterns that suggest that the offender has the potential to learn. Compare ALL of the information and use your professional judgement when considering flagging the offender for possible referral to the LSCP. If in doubt, consult with Sandy Latchford, Richard Glatt or other trained professional for feedback/guidance.

Ensure you fill out the OMS LD Screen to reflect your findings, as well as to raise a flag where an offender has been found to be at-risk of LD.

APPENDIX C: STANDARDIZED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

Brigance Diagnostic Life-Skills Inventory (B-LSI)

Primarily established to be used with children in Grades 2 to 8, but also used with adults in special education or adult learning programs, the Brigance Diagnostic Life-Skills Inventory is a measure of competence in nine different skills: speaking and listening, functional writing, words on signs and warning labels, telephone skills, money and finance, food, clothing, health, and, travel and transportation. Additional optional assessments of more subjective areas such as health practices and attitudes, self-concept, and listening skills are also included. The instrument was designed as a determinant of basic learning skills and to aid in the planning and selection of appropriate curriculum and programs. While the B-LSI is easily administered and scored, the test developers did not report any psychometric information regarding the measure. No evaluation of norms, scale construction, reliability, or validity are reported (Plake & Impara, 2001).

Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills, Revised (CIBS-R)

Designed for the evaluation of children aged 5 to 13 (Kindergarten to Grade 9), the Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills, Revised (CIBS-R) is composed of 154 scores pertaining to eight different areas: readiness, speech, listening, research and study skills, reading, spelling, writing, and math. The instrument allows for the assessment of skill acquisition and provides a norm-referenced interpretation of student performance. In addition, the CIBS-R provides one of the most extensive selections of items with which to measure achievement and track student progress.

Norms for the CIBS-R were established using a demographically representative sample of 1,121 students. While empirical evidence of validity for the CIBS-R is lacking, measures of reliability have found test-retest values ranging from .70 to .98. Alternate forms of reliability reported were also found to be adequate (Plake & Impara, 2001).

Canadian Adult Achievement Test (CAAT)

Included as one of the assessments undertaken during the Offender Intake Assessment process, the CAAT is a set of evaluations developed to assess the level of educational achievement among adults. Comprised of three tests aimed at adults with different levels of formal education (A=Grades 1 to 4, B=Grades 5 to 8, C=Grades 9 and up), each test focusses on areas that are academically appropriate for that grade level. Level A looks at vocabulary, reading comprehension, spelling, number operations, and problem solving. Level B looks at the above factors as well as mechanical reasoning. Level C contains the same subtests as Level B but also has a language usage and science sub-test (Taylor, 2002).

Standardization of the CAAT was performed on 5,700 Canadian adults drawn from adult educational and vocational programs and from different institutions. Reliability of the test was measured to range from .84 to .95 for Levels A, B, and C using the Kuder Richardson Formula 20. Likewise, evidence has indicated positive intercorrelations within CAAT items (The Psychological Corporation, 2003).

Canadian Test of Basic Skills (CTBS)

Adapted from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the CTBS is a group administered test of academic achievement for students ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 12. Two non-equivalent forms of the test exist for elementary and middle school levels.

The aim of the CTBS is to measure growth in the fundamental skills crucial to day-to-day learning (listening, word analysis, vocabulary, reading, language, work study, and mathematics) in an effort to adjust educational material to suit the student’s needs, to determine strengths and weaknesses and to plan study programs.

The standards for the test were set in 1987/88 using 2,625 students from Grades 1 through 8 and 1,427 students from Grades 9 through 12. Although not much work has been done to assess the validity of the measure, predictive validity scores range from .35 to .67 across various subtests. Reliability scores for the CTBS have been reported as .77 (Levels 5 and 6), .85 (Levels 8 to 14) and .90 (Levels 15 to 18). While claims that the CTBS measure academic development detract from its usefulness, it is nonetheless a widely-used standardized test which is supported by comprehensive resource documents and scoring services (Kramer & Conoley, 1992).

APPENDIX D: STANDARDIZED COGNITIVE TESTS

School and College Ability Test (SCAT)

The SCAT measures verbal and quantitative abilities and concept development, providing essential information for future decisions regarding the level and pace of instruction in which students should be placed (Johns Hopkins University, 2003).

Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R)

Originally produced in 1936, the WRAT-R aims to measure the coding of basic reading, spelling, and math skills in children and adults (ages 5 to 75). The Reading sub-test focusses on recognizing and naming letters and words, the Spelling on writing symbols, names, and words, and the Arithmetic on solving oral problems and written computations. Skills can be evaluated on two different levels. The manual describes general uses for the test to include comparing achievement between two people, determining learning ability or disability, and assessing error patterns and problems with comprehension in order to prescribe and plan remedial and instructional programs.

The WRAT-R used a stratified national sample of 5,600 subjects (28 in each age group) for standardization. While several issues surrounding the representativeness of the sample exist, test-retest reliability coefficients range from .79 to .94. Reviewers state that face validity of the measure is apparent, but content and concurrent validity fail to be supported with evidence. Likewise, several problems exist with regards to administrations of the test. The WRAT-R remains popular due to the fact that it can be administered and scored quickly, but should be used with caution as a means of diagnosing learning disabilities (Conoley & Kramer, 1989).

Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA)

Based on Guilford’s Theory of Intellect, the SOI-LA was designed to assess a variety of cognitive abilities and factors of intelligence in anyone from pre-school children to adults. With measures covering 26 different cognitive abilities, the SOI-LA is meant to provide a profile of an individual’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses while providing a basis for educational placement and screening for gifted or learning disabled individuals. It is available in seven different forms: overall cognitive assessments A and B, a gifted screening form, an arithmetic-math form, a reading form, a primary form, and a reading readiness form.

Inter-rater reliability is reported to range from .75 to 1.00, even for open-ended questions that require subjective scoring. However, test-retest coefficients fare less well, ranging from .35 to .88, with only 4 of the 26 ability measures scores above .75. The validity of the SOI-LA has been both doubted and supported, mainly on the grounds that the theory on which it is based (Guilford’s Theory of Intellect) is itself questionable. Where the original theory cited 120 abilities, the SOI-LA reduces the number to 26 while not providing any empirical support for the existence of only 26 distinct factors (Conoley & Kramer, 1989).

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT)

Intended as a brief measure of verbal and non-verbal intelligence, the K-BIT was developed for administration to individuals aged 4 to 90 and takes from 15 to 30 minutes to complete. The K-Bit likewise measures overall IQ through an IQ Composite with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, a common metric which can be compared to other intelligence tests. Not to be used as a comprehensive measure of intelligence, the K-BIT was mostly developed to act as a quick intelligence test in instances (such as job placement or research purposes) where in-depth evaluation is not required.

Norms for the K-BIT were formed on a stratified sample of 2,022 subjects ranging in age from 4 to 92 and are expressed in standard scores, percentile ranks, normal curve equivalents, stanines, and descriptive categories. Split-half reliabilities are expressed by age level for each subtest, ranging from .89 to .98 for the verbal subtest, .74 to .95 for the non-verbal sub-test and .88 to .98 for the IQ Composite sub-test. Test-retest reliabilities illustrate similar results. Although more testing is required to empirically establish validity, research done using classical item analysis, Rash one-parameter latent trait analysis, and item bias analysis found the K-Bit to be psychometrically sound. Other studies have reported its construct validity to range according to age level from .38 to .75 (Conoley & Impara, 1995).

Kaufman Short Neuropsychological Assessment Procedure (K-SNAP)

The K-SNAP was constructed as a short cognitive measure that assesses the ability of the subject to demonstrate intact mental functioning at three different levels of cognitive complexity. The short, 30-minute procedure yields a Mental Status Index made up of four subscales: Gestalt Closure subscale, Number Recall subscale, Four-Letter Words subscale, and Recall/Closure subscale. The authors stress the K-SNAP’s use as only part of a complete intellectual assessment or as a screening measure to determine who would benefit from further evaluation. The K-SNAP can be used with subjects aged 11 to 85.

Reliability, as reported through internal consistency measures, ranges from .75 to .94 (mean of .89) for the subtests. Test-retest analyses performed on 132 adolescents and adults yielded stability coefficients which were acceptable, ranging from .65 to .79. The concurrent and construct validity of the K-SNAP has been supported by substantial correlation’s with other, more comprehensive intelligence measures such as the KAIT, K-ABC, SB-IV, WISC-R, and WAIS-R (Impara & Plake, 1998).

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)

Often thought of as a shortened combination of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the WASI was designed as a short and reliable measure of intelligence for administration to subjects aged 6 to 89. The WASI is available in two forms, the two-subtest form (with verbal and performance tests along with full scale IQ) and the four-subtest form (with verbal and performance testing, Verbal and Performance IQ testing, and full scale IQ testing). The test is appropriately used for screening purposes, to obtain research estimates of IQ, and for estimations of IQ when time is limited or a more comprehensive evaluation is not required or possible.

The WASI was standardized using a census-based representative sample of 2,245 children and adults aged 6 to 89. Reliabilities are presented for each subtest and age group, with split-half reliabilities ranging from .81 to .98 and test-retest coefficients ranging from .83 to .95. Validity of the WASI was conducted by examining its correlation with the WAIS and through factor analysis. Correlation coefficients were reported as .66-.88 for subtests and .76-.92 for IQs, while factor analysis illustrated that the two-factor Verbal and Performance model used by the WASI fit the data more accurately then a one-factor model would have (Plake & Impara, 2001).

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition (WAIS-III)

The WAIS-III is the latest edition of the original Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale produced in 1939. Unique in that it considered both verbal ability and performance ability in the composite of intelligence, the WAIS continues to be the most frequently administered measure of adult intelligence. The test consists of 14 subtests which amalgamate into two sets of summary scores: the traditional verbal, performance, and full-scale IQ scores, and sets of scores that are more specific to certain domains (verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, working memory, and processing speed). Designed to be used with adults aged 16 through 89, the WAIS-III is best used for educational placement and planning for those with normal, below-normal and superior cognitive functioning, as well as helping to determine the extent to which neurological and psychiatric disorders may affect cognitive functioning.

The WAIS-III was normed on a census-representative national sample of adults. Content validity of the items was established by establishing an advisory panel of experts on the subject to review and improve problems identified in the previous version of the test. Criterion validity was reported as ranging from .75 to .88 when the WAIS-III was compared to other measures of intelligence. Split-half estimation procedures were used to evaluate reliability of the test, with a resulting median of .85. Test-retest reliabilities were reported as ranging from the .70s to .90s, and stability measures ranged from the .80s to the .90s as well (Plake & Impara, 2001).

APPENDIX E: LEARNING DISABILITIES AT-RISK CHECKLIST

Name:_________________ FPS:___________ Institution: _______ Date:________

Y = yes, N = no

1. Vision problems may have interfered with learning. ____

2. Hearing problems may have interfered with learning. ____

3. Health problems or physical disabilities may have interfered with learning. ____

4. Irregular attendance may have interfered with learning. ____

5. Lack of motivation and poor application to studies may have interfered with learning, especially in early grades. ____

(Expect to see NO to the above questions and YES to a number of questions below.)

6. Student seems to be competent in a number of areas and seems to be of at least average intellectual ability. ____

Cognitive assessment? ____ test:_________________ date: ______

Scores: Verbal - ________ Non-verbal - _______ Composite - ________

7. Is there variability in abilities with many strengths and some or many problem areas? ____

Is there a significant discrepancy between verbal and non-verbal scores? ____ (i.e., K-BIT = Vocabulary vs. Matrices scores)

CAAT scores: less than Grade 10 in at least one area? Date/level:_______ , ____

Scores: _________________________________________________

Is there a discrepancy in CAAT subtests of at least 2 grade levels? ____

8. There is difficulty in learning (listening, speaking, reading, writing, math, organization, problem-solving, memory, concentration, basic life skills). ____

9. There is a history of difficulties in learning from a young age. ____

____________________________________________________________

10. There is a previous diagnosis of learning disabilities. ____

(Specify: _________________________________)

11. There is a history of special help in school. ____

_________________________

12. There is a discrepancy between the highest grade completed and number of years in school. ____

______________________________

13. There is a family history of specific learning disabilities. ____

Who?/Specified? ___________________________________

14. For ESL adults, there is difficulty learning English literacy skills as well as literacy skills in native language; or difficulties learning literacy skills in native language. ____

APPENDIX F: LSCP REFERRAL SHEET

DATE: _______________________

OFFENDER NAME:______________FPS: _________________

REFERRED BY: _________________POSITION: ____________

Please indicate reason for referral:

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

______________________________________

What do you expect the offender to learn in the LSCP classroom?

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

Please indicate (circle) which of the following are problems for the offender:

  • Attention/concentration
  • Memory
  • Reading
  • Spelling
  • Math
  • Listening
  • Organization
  • Speaking/vocabulary
  • Written expression
  • Poor handwriting
  • Test/performance anxiety
  • Shyness
  • Procrastination
  • Impulsivity
  • Following directions
  • Motivation
  • Other:

If possible, please attach a sample of the offender’s work.

Forward the completed referral form to the LSCP teacher.

APPENDIX G: ACCOMMODATIONS

Hardware

1 Epson Perfection 1640SU multi-feed scanner

 

Software

1 Kurzweil 3000 Scan and Read black and white software by Lernout & Hauspie

1 Kurzweil 3000 Read Only black and white software by Lernout & Hauspie

5 copies Word Q Software

1 Dragon Naturally Speaking 6 by ScanSoft

1 copy The Alphabet: by Protea Textware Pty Ltd.

1 copy workbook and trial CD:

Strichart, S.S. & Mangrum, C.T. III. (2002). Teaching learning strategies and study skills to students with Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorders or Special Needs Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

APPENDIX H: COGNITIVE ENRICHMENT ADVANTAGE (CEA)

Building blocks of thinking

Approaching the learning experience

Exploration - Gathering information: to carefully search for all the information that might be necessary for success in a learning experience

Planning - Making a plan: to carefully decide how to approach the learning experience in an organized and careful way

Expression - Communicating thoughts and actions: to control how thoughts and actions are displayed in the learningexperience

Making meaning of the learning experience

Working memory - Using memory: to understand how memory works in order to better retrieve information stored in the brain, to clear the working memory of distractions, and to focus energy and attention in a learning experience

Getting the main idea - Automatically finding the most important idea: to know there is a need to always think about the basic idea that related pieces of information have in common

Thought integration - Pulling thoughts together: to be able to pull together and use at the same time multiple sources of information that are a part of a given event

Connecting events - Drawing information from previous and anticipated learning experiences: to know there is a need to think about relevant information from experiences in the past and those expected in the future and use these ideas in the present learning experience

Making comparisons - Automatically seeing what is alike and different: to know there is a need to always be aware of similarities and differences between the anticipated and actual occurrence of thoughts and actions in a learning experience and among ideas

Confirming the learning experience

Precision and accuracy - Understanding and using words and ideas correctly: to know there is a need to have an exact understanding and use of words and ideas in order to be successful in learning

Space and time concepts - Being aware of space and time: to understand how things relate in size, shape and distance, how events occur in time, and how to use this information for successful learning

Selective attention - Choosing relevant information: to select and to focus upon only the information needed to be successful in a learning experience

Problem identification - Automatically noticing inconsistencies within the learning experience: to always experience and to always define what is interfering with successful learning

Tools of Learning

Motivating Oneself within the Learning Experience

Self-regulation - Reflecting on thoughts and actions: to think about thoughts and actions as they occur in order to make needed changes regarding an approach to the learning experience

Goal directedness - Taking purposeful action: to take initiative in setting, seeking and reaching goals on a consistence basis

Self-development - Valuing one’s uniqueness: to become aware of special qualities one possesses and to kindle a desire to reach one’s potential

Sharing behaviour - Becoming interdependent: to share thoughts and actions expressed by oneself and others in order to learn collaboratively in a way that makes meaning clear

Understanding feelings within the learning experience

Inner meaning - Finding feelings to energize learning: to seek a reason for learning that is connected to emotions and to use these reasons and emotions to inspire oneself to learn

Feeling of competence - Being secure about one’s ability: to know how to control doubts about one’s ability in learning and doing by building confidence through recognizing one’s successful learning

Feeling of challenge - Controlling reactions to new and complex learning: to know that in new, complex and/or difficult learning experiences, feelings can be controlled in ways that help one to think more clearly and become aware of motivation for success

Awareness of self-change - Expecting change: to recognize and understand feelings about how one changes as a result of learning experiences

APPENDIX I: STANDARD REFRENCE LIBRARY

Testing Material

Brigance, A.H. Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (Revised- Green Version). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.

  • 1 test binder
  • 10 student record books

Kaufman, A.S. & Kaufman, N.L. Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

  • 1 easel
  • 2 manual
  • 1 package Individual Test Record

Harrington, T.F. & O’Shea, A.J. (2002) The Harrington-O’Shea Career Decision-Making System Revised - Canadian Edition. Richmond Hill, ON: Psycan.

  • 24 Survey booklets
  • 24 Interpretive folders

Resources

Amen, D.G. (2001). Healing ADD - The breakthrough program to see and heal the 6 types of ADD. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Bain, A.M., Bailet, L.L., & Moats, L.C. (2000). Written language disorders: Theory into practice – second edition. Texas: Pro-Ed.

Bender, W.N. (1998). Professional issues in learning disabilities: Practical strategies and relevant research. Texas: Pro-Ed.

Davis, L., Sirotowitz, S., & Parker, H. (1996). Study strategies made easy: A practical plan for school success. Florida: Specialty Press, Inc.

DeBryn, R.L., & Larson, J.L. (1984). You can handle them all. Kansas: The Master Teacher.

Hagan, J.S., McDonnold, S.B., & Meyer, J. (1990). The speech and language classroom intervention manual. Columbia, Missouri: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.

Harwell, J.M. (1995). Ready-to-use information and materials for assessing specific learning disabilities: Complete learning disabilities resource library – Volume 1. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education.

Harwell, J.M. (1995). Ready-to-use tools and materials for remediating specific Learning disabilities: Complete learning disabilities resource library – Volume II. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education.

Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (1996). Bringing literacy within reach: Cue cards for learning. Ottawa: Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.

Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (1999). Destination literacy: Identifying and teaching adults with learning disabilities. Ottawa: Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.

McCarney, S. (1992). Emotional or behavior disorder intervention manual: Goals, objective, and intervention strategies for the emotionally or behaviorally disordered student. Columbia, Missouri: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.

McCarney, S. (1994). The attention deficit disorders intervention manual – Second edition. Columbia. Missouri: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.

McCarney, S.B. & Bauer, A.M. (1995). Learning disability intervention manual – Revised edition. Columbia, Missouri: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.

McCarney, S.B., Wunderlich, K.C., & Bauer, A.M. (1993). Pre-referral intervention manual – Revised and updated second edition: The most common learning and behavior problems encountered in the educational environment. Columbia, Missouri: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.

Miller, W.H. (1993). Complete reading disabilities handbook: Ready-to-use techniques for teaching reading disabled students. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education.

Novotni, M. (1999). What does everybody else know that I don’t? Florida: Specialty Press, Inc.

Scherer, M.J. (2002). Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Weiss, L. (1994). The Attention Deficit Disorder in adults workbook. New York: Taylor Trade Publishing.

APPENDIX J: LSCP RESEARCH PROTOCOL

Phase 0

Inclusion Criteria Yes No
Under 50 years old    
Average to above average cognitive functioning (IQ > 90; stanine >5; percentile >25)    
Risk of learning disability present    
More than 6 months remaining prior to release    
No current serious problems with institutional adjustment (e.g. suicide, violence, substance use)    
Below grade 10 education    
Participation in or wait-listed for other institutional programs    

Phase I

Demographics

The information in this section can be found on OMS under Tombstone Data, Correctional Planning (sentence management and immediate needs identification), and Security and Discipline.

Interview date ______ (yyyy) ______ (mm) ______ (dd)
Gender male
female
Date of birth ______ (yyyy) ______ (mm) ______ (dd)
Current age ______
Race Caucasian
Black
Aboriginal
Asian
Other: __________________
Region Pacific
Prairies
Ontario
Quebec
Atlantic
Institution Dorchester
La Macaza
Collins Bay
Sask Penn
Mission
Security Classification Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Incarceration date ______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ____ (dd)
Eligible release date ______ (yyyy)____ (mm) ____ (dd)
Index offence Arson
Assault
Attempted murder
Break and enter
Dangerous driving
Drug offence
Fraud
Intent to commit kidnapping
Mischief
Murder
Obstruction
Possession of weapon
Prostitution
Robbery
Sexual offence
Suspension/termination
Theft
Threatening
Length of sentence _________ (months)
Time remaining in sentence _________ (months)
Number of institutional misconducts in previous 6 months _________
Suicide risk? Yes
No
Unknown

Education background

Highest grade completed __________
Year this grade was completed __________ (yyyy)
Was this information verified? Yes
No
Unknown
Any additional academic/vocational training? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: How many years? Describe: ____________________________________________

Academic evaluation

Has an academic evaluation been done? Yes
No
Unknown

Academic evaluation – details

Date of most recent/accurate completed evaluation _______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ____ (dd)
What test was administered? ____________
Where was the evaluation administered? Community
Institution
Other: ______________
Administrator of the evaluation Teacher
Psychologist
Guidance counsellor
Other: ______________
Interpretation _________________________________
Do the results suggest a risk for LD? Ye
No
Unknown
Grade equivalencies (round down)  
Reading comprehension ___________
Vocabulary ___________
Spelling ___________
Math concepts ___________
Math problems ___________
Math computations ___________
Writing ___________
Which areas are in need? (round down)  
Reading Yes
No
Unknown
Writing Yes
No
Unknown
Spelling Yes
No
Unknown
Math Yes
No
Unknown
Other _______________________________
Which areas are a strength? (round down)  
Reading Yes
No
Unknown
Writing Yes
No
Unknown
Spelling Yes
No
Unknown
Math Yes
No
Unknown
Other _______________________________

Cognitive function

Was a test for cognitive function performed? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Evaluation date: _______ (yyyy)____ (mm) ____ (dd)
Administrator of evaluation Teacher
Psychologist
Guidance counsellor
Other: __________
Instrument used:_____________________________
Score:_____________ (units)

Learning

Previously identified as LD? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Source of diagnosis: Self
School
Community
Institution
Other: ___________
History of special services used? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Location of services: Describe: Self
School
Community
Institution
Other: ____________
Does OMS identify any learning difficulties? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Which areas were identified: 
Learning Yes
No
Unknown
Memory Yes
No
Unknown
Concentration/attention Yes
No
Unknown
Reading Yes
No
Unknown
Writing Yes
No
Unknown
Numeracy Yes
No
Unknown
Comprehension Yes
No
Unknown
Others: ___________________________
Any known factors that might interfere with learning? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

Substance use Yes
No
Unknown
Hearing impairment Yes
No
Unknown
Vision impairment Yes
No
Unknown
Motor impairment Yes
No
Unknown
Head injury Yes
No
Unknown
Illness Yes
No
Unknown
Stress Yes
No
Unknown
Medication Yes
No
Unknown
Lack of motivation Yes
No
Unknown
Lack of interest Yes
No
Unknown
Impulsivity Yes
No
Unknown
Disruptive behaviour Yes
No
Unknown
Other: ____________________________
Any challenges in the following areas? 
Attitude towards learning Yes
No
Not sure
Not observed
Willingness to participate in learning situations Yes
No
Not sure
Not observed
Confidence in completing learning tasks Yes
No
Not sure
Not observed

Institutional program participation

Is the offender currently enrolled in an institutional program? Yes
No
Unknown

Program details

Current program enrolment: Employment
Education
Ethnocultural
Substance abuse
Violence prevention
Family violence
Cognitive skills
Parenting skills
Living without violence
Anger and other emotions management
Leisure skills
Sex offender
Other: ________________
Is the offender wait-listed for a program? Yes
No
Unknown

Phase II

Referral

Was the offender referred to the LSCP classroom? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Date of referral:______ (yyyy)_____ (mm) ____ (dd)
Referral source: Self
Program
Intake
Parole
Psychologist
Education
Other: ______________
Was a referral checklist completed? Yes
No
Unknown
If yes: Describe: ______________________________

Current program enrolment

In the program the offender is currently enrolled in, is he/she experiencing difficulty with the content? Yes
No
Unknown

Details of current difficulties

What skill is presenting difficulty? Reading
Writing
Math
Spelling
Concentration/Attention
>Memory
Organization
Others: _______________
In which program was this difficulty occurring? Employment
Education
Ethnocultural
Substance abuse
Violence prevention
Family violence
Cognitive skills
Parenting skills
Living without violence
Anger and other emotions management
Leisure skills
Sex offender
Other: _____________________

Status of referral

Status of referral: Accept
Deny
Wait-listed
If denied: Source of denial: Self
Teacher
Other: ______
Reason for denial: Refusal
Transfer
Other: ______

Pre-LSCP behaviour (Previous 6 months)

This section can be completed using different sources of information such as parole officers, OMS, correctional officers, program officers, the offender, your observations, etc.

  Never Seldom Sometimes Often Unknown
Threatens aggression towards others, self or objects
Demonstrates aggression towards others, self or objects
Displays inappropriate energy levels
Insults/swears at others
Very demanding/rude
Talkative/difficult to interrupt
Sullen, limited remarks
Inappropriate emotions to events
Flat, listless, feeling down
Inappropriate attention to self-care
Interacts negatively
Does not initiate social interaction with peers
Does not initiate social interaction with staff
Does not attend activities
Impulsive
Anxious

Pre-LSCP program performance

Complete this section using the program performance sheets completed by program deliverers. Use the performance reports completed closest to the start (pre) and end date (post) of the LSCP program. If the offender is in more than one program, rate this section using the program for which the offender is experiencing the most difficulty:

Name of program: __________________________
Date this program evaluation completed: _______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ___ (dd)
  Excellent Good Fair Poor Unknown
Attendance/punctuality:
Full and active participation:
Completion of assignments:
Interpersonal relationships:
Attitude:
Behaviour:
Effort:
Motivation:
Responsibility:
Problem solving:
Communication skills:
Safety practices:

Pre-LSCP academic skill evaluation

Instrument used for this evaluation: ___________________________
For which of the following difficulties did the offender require your support? 
Reading difficulties: Yes
No
Unknown
Writing difficulties: Yes
No
Unknown
Spelling difficulties: Yes
No
Unknown
Math difficulties: Yes
No
Unknown

Reading – language

Difficulties related to Language/auditory processing? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty with rhyming
Difficulty with syllabication
Difficulty reading function words
Difficulty reading content words
Difficulty understanding abstract ideas
Poor discrimination of speech sounds
Slow, slurred or cluttered speech
Mispronunciation
Poor sound-symbol association
Poor sequencing of events in comprehension questions and recall
Difficulty making predictions
Problems understanding material read orally
Problems understanding material read silently

Reading – memory

Difficulties related to memory Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Poor paragraph recall
Poor recall of detail on comprehension questions
Reads fluently but does not remember what is read
Poor use of context for meaning
Difficulty following multiple directions
Difficulty remembering what is read
Difficulty remembering sequence of a task
Needs prompts, cues, concrete demonstrations
Knows words one day, but not the next

Reading – visual

Difficulties related to visual-spatial abilities? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty focussing on page
Skips lines
Skips parts of a line
Difficulty with visual-matching tasks
Follows along with finger
Holds reading material close
Loses place on page when reading

Writing – language

Difficulties related to language? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Spelling errors reflect poor phonics
Fails to use complete sentences
Uses short sentences
Uses simple sentences
Uses weak sentence structure
Uses improper verb tenses
Has limited vocabulary
Uses mostly concrete words
Uses wrong words in places
Difficulty sequencing events

Writing – memory

Difficulties related to memory? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Spelling errors show poor recall of letter patterns
Difficulty retrieving (finding) words
Difficulty recalling events

Writing – visual

Difficulties related to visual-spatial abilities? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Poor letter formation
Poor letter spacing
Poor word spacing
Lacks capitalization/punctuation
Poor organization of written work

Spelling – language

Difficulties related to language/auditory processing? Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Wrong, extra or missing syllables, prefixes, suffixes
Invented words and faulty substitutions
Mispronunciations
Omissions of sounded letters
Makes more phonetically inaccurate than phonetically accurate misspellings

Spelling – visual memory

Difficulties related to visual memory Yes
No
Unknown
Makes spelling errors related to visual memory of the correct spelling: Yes
No
Unknown

If yes:

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Phonetic substitutions
Homonym confusion
Reversals
Transpositions
Omission of silent letters
Bizarre misspellings
Makes spelling errors related to memory for spelling rules:        
Changing "y" to "i"
Dropping silent "e"
Placing "i" before "e"
Double final consonant
Using capital letters
Forming plurals
Visual-spatial abilities:        
Difficulty discriminating visually similar letters/words
Difficulty discriminating correct spelling and misspellings
Can spell orally but not in writing
Poor letter formation
Poor letter spacing
Poor word spacing
Poor overall organization on page
Slow speed in writing

Math

  Yes No Not sure Not observed
The student can carry out:        
Simple one-digit addition
Two-digit addition
Multiple-digit addition with carrying
Simple one-digit subtraction
Two-digit subtraction
Multiple-digit subtraction with borrowing
Simple one-digit multiplication
Two-digit multiplication
Multiple-digit multiplication
Simple one-digit division
Two-digit division
Multiple-digit division
Multiple-digit division with remainders
The student has problems with the following:        
Reading signs
Understanding arithmetic concepts
Memorizing procedures
Understanding procedures
Applying procedures
Checking answers for accuracy
Graphic output
Speed of calculation
Understanding language in word problems
Estimating time
Memorizing times tables

Pre-LSCP oral skills

Difficulties with oral communication? Yes
No
Unknown

Pre-LSCP oral skills – details

Voice quality Mumbles
Nasal
Too loud
Too soft
Avoids eye contact when conversing: Yes
No
Unknown
  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Long pauses before answering questions
Blurts out answers with little thought
Talks excessively
Does not stay on topic
Has difficulty stating what is meant
Monosyllabic responses
Uses incomplete sentences
Has inappropriate responses
Swearing
Responds to many questions with "I don’t know" or "I don’t remember"
Oral response has nothing to do with question asked
Uses humour/clowning around to get out of answering
Difficulty finding correct word
Uses limited vocabulary
Difficulty speaking in sentences
Poor organization in oral language
Problems in verbal reasoning

Pre-LSCP listening skills

Difficulties with listening skills Yes
No
Unknown
  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Problems understanding material read aloud by others
Difficulty remembering what is heard

Pre-LSCP attention skills

Difficulties with attention skills: Yes
No
Unknown
  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty staying on task
Daydreamer
Easily distractible
Difficulty completing tasks

Pre-LSCP organization skills

Difficulties with organizational skills: Yes
No
Unknown
  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Organization of time
Organization of materials
Organization of thoughts

Pre-LSCP strategy evaluation

Please have the offender complete the Pre-LSCP Strategy Evaluation form and summarize the results in this section.

Number of strategies identified: __________ (1–10)
Number of strategies would use: __________ (1–10)
Efficacy rating by offender: 0   1   2
Efficacy rating by teacher: 0   1   2

Phase III

Implementation

Was this offender previously wait-listed for the LSCP program? Yes    No
Date of first class: _______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ____ (dd)
Length of prescribed program: (hours) 1–10
11–20
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
71–80
81–90
91–100
101–110
111–120
Frequency of prescribed program (x/wk): 1
2
3
4
5
What is the primary goal: ______________________________
What is the secondary goal: ______________________________
What are the specific areas being addressed: Organization
Work related tasks
Academics
Concentration
Memory
Other: _________________
Are any other learning strategies being prescribed simultaneously? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Describe: ______________________________
Are any other accommodations being used? Yes   No   Unknown

Date of LSCP completion

Date of last class: _______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ____ (dd)

Phase IV

LSCP completion

Length of time in the LSCP program: (hrs) 1–10
11–20
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
71–80
81–90
91–100
101–110
111–120
How many times a week was the individual in the LSCP classroom? 1
2
3
4
5
Was the primary goal achieved? Yes   No   Unknown
If no: Why? ______________________________
Was the secondary goal achieved? Yes   No   Unknown
If no: Why? ______________________________
If program was not completed, give the reason: Dropped out
Expelled
Transferred
Other ____________

Progress

Any challenges in the following areas? Yes No Not sure Not observed
Attitude towards learning
Willingness to participate in learning situations
Confidence in completing learning tasks
How much progress would you attribute to the LSC program? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
How much progress does the individual attribute to LSC program? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
Were any accommodations used in the classroom? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Describe: ______________________________
How much progress would you attribute to these accommodations? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
How much progress would the individual attribute to these accommodations? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
Was assistive technology used? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Describe: _______________________________
How much progress would you attribute to assistive technology? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
How much progress would the individual attribute to assistive technology? None
Somewhat
Significant
All
Were the LSCP support strategies being practiced in other CSC programs? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: In which program? Employment
Education
Ethnocultural
Substance abuse
Violence prevention
Family violence
Cognitive skills
Parenting skills
Living without violence
Anger and other emotions management
Leisure skills
Sex offender
Other: ___________________
Does the individual require more time in the LSCP classroom? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: How much more time? (hours) 1–10
11–20
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
71–80
81–90
91–100
101–110
111–120

Post-LSCP behaviour

This section can be completed using different sources of information such as parole officers, OMS, correctional officers, program officers, the offender, your observations, etc.

  Never Seldom Sometimes Often Unknown
Threatens aggression towards others, self, or objects
Demonstrates aggression towards others, self, or objects
Displays inappropriate energy levels
Insults/swears at others
Very demanding/rude
Talkative/difficult to interrupt
Sullen, limited remarks
Inappropriate emotions to events
Flat, listless, feeling down
Inappropriate attention to self-care
Interacts negatively
Does not initiate social interaction with peers
Does not initiate interactions with staff
Does not attend activities
Impulsive
Anxious

Post-LSCP program performance

Complete this section using the program performance sheets completed by program deliverers. Use the performance reports completed closest to the start (pre) and end date (post) of the LSCP program. If the offender is in more than one program, rate this section using the program for which the offender is experiencing the most difficulty:

Name of program: __________________________
Date this program evaluation completed: ______ (yyyy) ____ (mm) ____ (dd)
  Excellent Good Fair Poor Unknown
Attendance/punctuality
Full and active participation
Completion of assignments
Interpersonal relationships
Attitude
Behaviour
Effort
Motivation
Responsibility
Problem solving
Communication skills
Safety practices

Post-LSCP academic skill evaluation

Instrument used for this evaluation: __________________________

For which of the following difficulties did the offender require your support?

Reading difficulties Yes   No   Unknown
Writing difficulties Yes   No   Unknown
Spelling difficulties Yes   No   Unknown
Math difficulties Yes   No   Unknown

Reading – language

Difficulties related to language/auditory processing? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty with rhyming
Difficulty with syllabication
Difficulty with reading function words
Difficulty with reading content words
Difficulty understanding abstract ideas
Poor discrimination of speech sounds
Slow, slurred or cluttered speech
Mispronunciation
Poor sound-symbol association
Poor sequencing of events in comprehension questions and recall
Difficulty making predictions
Problems understanding material read orally
Problems understanding material read silently

Reading – memory

Difficulties related to memory? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Poor paragraph recall
Poor recall of detail on comprehension questions
Reads fluently but does not remember what is read
Poor use of context for meaning
Difficulty following multiple directions
Difficulty remembering what is read
Difficulty remembering sequence of a task
Needs prompts, cues, concrete demonstrations
Knows words one day, but not the next

Reading – visual

Difficulties related to visual-spatial? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty focussing on the page
Skips lines
Skips parts of a line
Difficulty with visual-matching tasks
Follows along with finger
Holds reading material close
Loses place on page when reading

Writing – language

Difficulties related to language Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Spelling errors reflect poor phonics
Fails to use complete sentences
Uses short sentences
Uses simple sentences
Uses weak sentence structure
Uses improper verb tenses
Has limited vocabulary
Uses mostly concrete words
Uses wrong words in places
Difficulty sequencing events

Writing – memory

Difficulties related to memory? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Spelling errors show poor recall of letter patterns
Difficulty retrieving (finding) words
Difficulty recalling events

Writing – visual

Difficulties related to visual-spatial abilities? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Poor letter formation
Poor letter spacing
Poor word spacing
Lacks capitalization/punctuation
Poor organization of written work

Spelling – language

Difficulties related to language/auditory processing? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Wrong, extra or missing syllables, prefixes, suffixes
Invented words and faulty substitutions
Mispronunciation
Omissions of sounded letters
Makes more phonetically inaccurate than phonetically accurate misspellings

Spelling – visual memory

Difficulties related to visual memory? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Makes spelling errors related to visual memory of the correct spelling:
Phonetic substitutions
Homonym confusion
Reversals
Transpositions
Omission of silent letters
Bizarre misspellings
Makes spelling errors related to memory for spelling rules: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Changing "y" to "i"
Dropping silent "e"
Placing "i" before "e"
Doubling final consonant
Using capital letters
Forming plurals
Visual-spatial abilities: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty discriminating visually similar letters/words
Difficulty discriminating correct spelling and misspellings
Can spell orally but not in writing
Poor letter formation
Poor letter spacing
Poor word spacing
Poor overall organization on page
Slow speed in writing

Math

The student can carry out: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Simple one-digit addition
Two-digit addition
Multiple-digit addition with carrying
Simple one-digit subtraction
Two-digit subtraction
Multiple-digit subtraction with borrowing
Simple one-digit multiplication
Two-digit division
Multiple-digit division
Multiple-digit division with remainders
The student has problems with the following: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Reading signs
Understanding arithmetic concepts
Memory for procedures
Understanding procedures
Applying procedures
Checking answers for accuracy
Graphic output
Speed of calculation
Understanding language in word problems
Estimating times
Memorizing times tables

Post-LSCP oral skills

Difficulties with oral communication? Yes   No   Unknown

Post-LSCP oral skills – details

Voice quality: Mumbles
Nasal
Too loud
Too soft
Avoids eye contact when conversing: Yes   No   Unknown
  Yes No Not sure Not observed
Long pauses before answering questions
Blurts out answers with little thought
Talks excessively
Does not stay on topic
Has difficulty stating what is meant
Monosyllabic responses
Uses incomplete sentences
Has inappropriate responses
Swearing
Responds to many questions with ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’
Oral response has nothing to do with the question asked
Uses humour/clowning around to get out of answering
Difficulty finding correct word
Uses limited vocabulary
Difficulty speaking in sentences
Poor organization in oral language
Problems in verbal reasoning

Post-LSCP listening skills

Difficulties with listening skills? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Problems understanding material read aloud by others
Difficulty remembering what is heard

Post-LSCP attention skills

Difficulty with attention skills? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Difficulty staying on task
Daydreamer
Easily distractible
Difficulty completing tasks

Post-LSCP organization skills

Difficulties with attention skills? Yes   No   Unknown
If yes: Yes No Not sure Not observed
Organization of time
Organization of materials
Organization of thoughts

Post-LSCP strategy evaluation

Please have the offender complete the Pre-LSCP Strategy Evaluation form and summarize the results in this section.

Date of follow-up: _______ (yyyy) _____ (mm) ______ (dd)
Number of strategies identified: _______
Number of strategies would use: _______
Efficacy rating by offender: 0
1
2
Efficacy rating by teacher: 0
1
2

Post-LSCP self-report evaluation

Distribute the self-report questionnaire and then complete the following.

Overall, I (participant) think the program was:

  Low     Moderate     High
High quality
Interesting
Difficult
Enjoyable
Helpful
Well planned

What was your opinion of the program on the following:

  Too little << Just right >> Too much
Assistance and information provided
Group discussions
Tests
Length of each session
Length of program

To what degree have the following area of your life changed since your participation in this program?

  Worse Same Small Large
My desire to make positive changes
My ability to make positive changes
My knowledge of techniques to cope

Please provide us with some feedback about how the program was delivered

  Not at all Somewhat Very much
Kept me interested
Treated me with fairness
Supported me in making changes
Gave me appropriate feedback
Encouraged me to talk
Made me feel what I said was important

Phase V

Four-week follow-up

Date of follow up: ______ (yyyy) _______ (mm) ______ (dd)
Increased ability Yes    No
Continued use Yes    No

Eight-week follow-up

Date of follow up: ______ (yyyy) _______ (mm) ______ (dd)
Increased ability Yes    No
Continued use Yes    No

Twelve-week follow-up

Date of follow up: ______ (yyyy) _______ (mm) ______ (dd)
Increased ability Yes    No
Continued use Yes    No

APPENDIX K: CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

Employment Programming

CSC offers different "on-the-job" training programs to offenders. These programs are recognized and accredited by the Ministry of Education of each province and provide an official document to offenders on skills they have acquired during their employment. Short programs to improve the employability are also continuously developed and offered to offenders in the institution and the community. These short programs answer the specific demand made by the labour market. In addition, employment and career planning is offered to inmates. These programs are developed in light of the employability skills profile described by the Conference Board of Canada and allow offenders to acquire skills, attitudes and behaviours valued by employers. More specifically, they include problem solving, critical thinking, punctuality, interacting with coworkers, being respectful of other people’s opinions and feelings, and dealing with authority figures.

Education Programming

The following education programs are available at minimum, medium, and maximum-security institutions in order for CSC to meet its goal of educating inmates so that they may compete lawfully in the community:

  • Adult Basic Education (Grades 1 to 10)
  • Secondary Education
  • Vocational Education
  • Post-secondary Education

Each program component provides offenders with opportunities to acquire education appropriate to their needs, achievement and ability.

Ethnocultural Programming

  • Cross-Cultural Affirmation Programs:

In order to understand the diverse cultural backgrounds of the offenders and staff, CSC organizes different activities. Different groups such as Black Inmates and Friends Assembly (BIFA), Italian groups, Chinese groups, Greek groups and Jewish groups perform activities that help raise cultural identity and positive affirmation.

  • Positive and Motivational Reinforcement Programs:

In order to increase the participation of ethnocultural offenders in correctional core programs, CSC will use positive and motivational reinforcement by identifying the desired behaviour, acknowledging each level of improvement, maintaining the desired behaviour and individualizing the reinforcement.

  • Cross-Cultural Awareness Activities:

A series of initiatives to help increase awareness of staff and offenders are undertaken in the area of multiculturalism. These initiatives included such things as seminars, conferences, cultural festivals, the celebration of International Day for the Elimination of Racism (March 21), the creation of multicultural groups (for example, Phoenix in Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Rainbow in Leclerc Institution, and Racial Harmony in Warkworth Institution), the creation of a multicultural network, and visits to ethnic communities.

Substance Abuse Programs

Several years ago, CSC began developing and implementing a range of core substance abuse programs designed to be matched with offenders’ treatment needs to maximize treatment effectiveness. The Service’s overarching strategy is to incorporate the most recent advances in the field of effective correctional intervention and in the broader field of substance abuse theory, research, and clinical practice. CSC also supports a variety of other adjunctive counselling, awareness, and support activities.

CSC’s current regimen of core substance abuse programs includes:

  • an induction and orientation program for all newly admitted offenders;
  • an intermediate-intensity program for offenders with serious problems;
  • an intermediate-intensity program for long-term offenders;
  • a program to address the specific needs of female offenders;
  • a community-based relapse prevention program with extended maintenance;
  • Aboriginal-specific treatment programs.

Violence Prevention Programs

The Violence Prevention Programs Section consists of two elements: a Violence Prevention Program and a Segregation Program. The Violence Prevention Program is an intensive cognitive-behavioural reintegration program for incarcerated federal offenders. It is grounded in contemporary theory and research, and delivered by a mental health professional and a program officer. The Segregation Program is delivered by an experienced mental health professional and a program officer. The overriding legislative principle of the segregation pilot program is that the placement of offenders in the general population is the norm, as is the provision of adequate protection, control, programs, and services to offenders who cannot be maintained in this population. In practical terms, this means that the goal is to assist the offender in returning to the general population as early as possible, while providing rehabilitative program opportunities to offenders who have no short-term alternatives to segregation.

Family Violence Programs

CSC’s Family Violence Prevention Programs are primarily focussed on male offenders who have been abusive in their intimate relationships with female partners or ex-partners. Culturally, specific programs are being designed for Aboriginal offenders. Currently the family violence programs for women emphasize issues related to their victimization. However, Reintegration Programs is working on a project to design a treatment protocol for women perpetrators of abuse in intimate relationships. The two current national programs in place are the High Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program (HIFVPP) and the Moderate Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program (MIFVPP).

Cognitive Skills Programming

The Cognitive Skills Program, core component of Living Skills Programming, consists of 36 sessions that focus on the development of interpersonal reasoning skills for effective life management. Its goal is to modify the impulsive, egocentric, illogical and rigid thinking of offenders.

The program targets the following specifically identified cognitive deficit areas:

  • Self-control,
  • Interpersonal problem solving,
  • Cognitive style,
  • Social perspective taking,
  • Values,
  • Critical reasoning.

Parenting Skills Programming

The program is intended to foster and support offenders who show a commitment to developing or improving a healthy family relationship while incarcerated and upon release. It is designed to help offenders to develop and improve the understanding and skills that are required to successfully relate to their families, and particularly to their children. This program is based on the cognitive development model; it strives to improve participants’ cognitive functioning, while imparting parenting skills.

Living Without Violence

Living Without Violence is intended to introduce offenders to a broader understanding of what constitutes violence, and what are its causes and impact. As a prevention program, it may encourage participants to adopt attitudes and beliefs to prevent future violence. It may also indirectly encourage those who are abusive in their relationships to seek treatment. It is part of an overall strategy to reduce or prevent family violence among federal offenders.This is not a therapy program, nor is it appropriate for sex offenders who have not received previous sex offender treatment.

Anger and Emotions Management Program

The overriding objective of this program is to provide offenders with skills to reduce the frequency and intensity of emotional arousal linked with aggression while increasing the use of prosocial skills to resolve conflict. The program is based on a cognitive-behavioural approach to anger reduction. It is meant to train offenders in skills needed to manage anger and other emotions associated with the occurrence of aggression and antisocial behaviour. Although the primary focus of the program is the management of anger, it contains a section on the management of other negative emotions, especially aggressive behaviour.

Leisure Skills Programming

The Leisure Skills Program is for offenders who have a criminal history related to their inappropriate use of leisure time and/or whose current leisure pursuits are not conducive to coping or adapting, either inside the institution or in the community. Of particular concern are offenders who are involved in leisure activities that are related to antisocial or other behavioural problems, such as substance abuse, compulsive gambling or membership in antisocial gangs. This program may serve as a useful adjunct to treatment programs that specifically target such behaviours.

Sexual Offender Programs

The treatment of sexual offenders is a therapeutic and semi-structured intervention aimed at reducing the risk of recidivism through the use of effective self-management. It deals with cognitive distortions, deviant arousal and fantasy, social competence, anger and emotion management, empathy, and victim awareness. Sexual offender programs tend to have a cognitive-behavioural approach and are delivered in groups with individual intervention when required. The programs emphasize the need for offenders to take responsibility for their actions, recognize the behavioural progression that preceded and followed sexual offences, identify situations which place them at risk to re-offend, and assist them to develop strategies to prevent recidivism.

Date Modified: 2015-03-05

Top of Page
Important Notices