U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Evaluation of an Inmate-Run Alternatives to Violence Project: The Impact of Inmate-to Inmate Intervention

NCJ Number
208925
Journal
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 16 Issue: 7 Dated: July 2001 Pages: 697-711
Author(s)
Christine Walrath
Date Published
July 2001
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This article reports on an evaluation of the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP), a training program for inmates operated by inmates to prevent violence in prison.
Abstract
The AVP philosophy, which originated in 1975 at the Green Haven Prison in New York State, is to encourage inmates to take responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their behavior, to provide a supportive community within the prison, and to offer options other than fight or flight when dealing with conflict. Inmates must volunteer to participate in the program. The AVP evaluated is being conducted at a medium-security State correctional facility in Maryland. At the time of the evaluation (1995 to 1996), the program had been operating for approximately 7 years. For the evaluation, the intervention group consisted of 53 inmates scheduled for but who had not yet participated in a basic AVP workshop. The comparison group consisted of 41 inmates who were not scheduled for and had not expressed an interest in the AVP. The intervention and comparison groups were assessed at baseline and a 6-month follow-up. Four attitude/attribute-dependent measures were included in the evaluation to assess anger, self-esteem, optimism, and locus of control. All instruments were administered to both the intervention and comparison groups. Inmate behavior was assessed through self-reports. Findings show that the program had a positive impact on anger and self-reported confrontations for inmates who completed the AVP compared to those who did not. The article concludes with a discussion of the power of the institutional environment, the need for continuing intervention with offenders, and directions for future evaluations in correctional settings. 2 tables and 26 references