0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The positive effects of TC treatment were contingent upon employment following release from prison. Comparison inmates who failed to obtain full-time employment following release were 9.6 times more likely to be reincarcerated. The TC group (11%) had a slightly lower rearrest rate than the Comparison group (14%), but this difference was not statistically significant. TC inmates (36%) had a slightly lower relapse rate than Comparison inmates (39%), but this i difference was not statistically significant. Post-release employment strongly reduced (by 50% or more) the likelihood of drug relapse, rearrest, and reincarceration. Treatment outcomes were generally invariant across institutions, with one important exception. Signiscantly higher rates of drug relapse were observed for inmates treated at Cresson (44%) and Houtzdale (46%) compared to Waymart (23%), Huntingdon (3 l%), and Graterford (32%). TC inmates evidenced numerous, positive hprovements in psychosocial functioning and involvement in treatment over the first six months of treatment. TC inmates showed significant decreases in self-esteem, depression, and risk-taking behavior, and significant increases in therapeutic engagement, personal progress, trust in group, opinions of program stas and perceptions of counselor rapport and counselor competence. The strongest area of consistency across the five TC programs was in the high ratings that inmates gave of counselor rapport and counselor competence. Each unit, while implementing the basic TC philosophy, also exhibited some programmatic variations. Two of the five TC units were rather large (loo+ inmates). Large units make it difficult to properly implement the TC philosophy, which depends heavily upon positive peer interactions. 6 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
0 0 Treatment staff showed a high level of discretion about appropriate thresholds for success and grounds for dismissal. While the overall termination rate for TC (25%) was reasonable, one program (Waymart) was very low (5%); another (Graterford) was very high (71%). 0 Significant variation in several measures of psychosocial functioning (depression, sei$ efficacy, hostility, risk taking, social conformity, treatment readiness) was found across the five sites. Generally, Huntingdon inmates showed the greatest improvements in psychosocial functioning over time, Houtzdale and Waymart inmates showed the least improvement, Graterford and Cresson were in between. 0 No significant differences in measures of involvement in treatment (e.g., therapeutic engagement) were found across the five sites. Limitations 0 The major limitation was the brevity of the follow-up periods and associated sample sizes available for multivariate analyses so far. As more inmates are released, and as average time at risk increases, we will revisit the analyses and conclusions formulated in this report. 0 Our ability to examine post-release outcomes was limited by the unavailability of automated data regarding participation in aftercare treatment. Aftercare may interact with employment and other observed predictors to influence outcomes. Further research should examine ways to better integrate prison-based drug treatment with post-release needs and resources. 0 It was dficult to determine the degree to which employment was a cause or an effect. To do so, it would be useful to obtain more detailed information on parolees’ type of post-release employment, employee performance, income, etc. To disentangle potential causes, research should also determine how other factors (e.g., intelligence, cognitive abilities, education, in- 7 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 1 and 2: The author(s) shown below used Fede
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation of Pri
Page 7: e the same five institutions were c
Page 11 and 12: Policy Issues and Recommendations R
Page 13 and 14: 1. Overview In fro duction Like oth
Page 15 and 16: a years old. Offenders were serving
Page 17 and 18: integrated into the other activitie
Page 19 and 20: e repeatedly incarcerated, but untr
Page 21 and 22: 0 According to a recent report by t
Page 23 and 24: e and Camacho, 1997), and the Feder
Page 25 and 26: 8% lower reincarceration rate compa
Page 27 and 28: e reincarcerated, compared to only
Page 29 and 30: e of less violence and greater drug
Page 31 and 32: included those clients who graduate
Page 33 and 34: e conjunction with the National Ins
Page 35 and 36: @ drug use than untreated women (35
Page 37 and 38: 9 serve, then they were removed fio
Page 39 and 40: programming per week (mean = 30 hr/
Page 41 and 42: participation in treatment) and pos
Page 43 and 44: 1990; Bonta, 1996; Jones, 1996). Th
Page 45 and 46: Admission and Classification. 1 I I
Page 47 and 48: e or both’*. TC clients were aske
Page 49 and 50: e Post-release indicators focused u
Page 51 and 52: a Independent Variables One excelle
Page 53 and 54: state prison system. The test-retes
Page 55 and 56: e high correlation with the Beck De
Page 57 and 58: The social conformity scale has dis
Page 59 and 60:
e (Simpson, 1997). Items assess the
Page 61 and 62:
@ Sample Characteristics For each i
Page 63 and 64:
~~ 0 inmates participated in AOD pr
Page 65 and 66:
~ ~~ a Table 5 Treatment Exposure:
Page 67 and 68:
Inmates in the four program types d
Page 69 and 70:
dichotomous outcomes such as reinca
Page 71 and 72:
We also observed statkg ratios (inm
Page 73 and 74:
e until they are mandated to go, so
Page 75 and 76:
a Table 8 Inmate Characteristics bv
Page 77 and 78:
more counselors and that the progra
Page 79 and 80:
Waymart. Inmates attend a morning m
Page 81 and 82:
current TC inmates (REST and CRC fo
Page 83 and 84:
~ ~~~~ e However, a number of inmat
Page 85 and 86:
e Counselor ratings of client attri
Page 87 and 88:
@ process across the five programs,
Page 89 and 90:
Table 10 Mean CRC Scores: Time 1, T
Page 91 and 92:
Table 12 Mean CRC Scores: Paired Sa
Page 93 and 94:
Table 14 ChanPes in Ratings of Trea
Page 95 and 96:
DOC custody for a parole violation,
Page 97 and 98:
0 Table 15 Number and Type of Relea
Page 99 and 100:
Because few inmates had been releas
Page 101 and 102:
0 Table 16 Reincarceration SamDle C
Page 103 and 104:
0 Table 18 Lopistic Repression of R
Page 105 and 106:
Table 19 Survival Analvsis: Life Ta
Page 107 and 108:
Rearrests Rearrest analyses were ba
Page 109 and 110:
Table20 ~~~ Rearrest Sample Charact
Page 111 and 112:
Table 22 LoPistic Repression of Rea
Page 113 and 114:
Table 23 Survival Analvsis: Life Ta
Page 115 and 116:
e Drug Relapse and Other Parole Dat
Page 117 and 118:
successfill discharges only), the e
Page 119 and 120:
treatment, psychological hctioning)
Page 121 and 122:
Table 25 Logistic Repression of Dru
Page 123 and 124:
i Comparison Group TC Group Note. E
Page 125 and 126:
c 0 E 40% icr E Cresson Graterford
Page 127 and 128:
Hazard Function V C comparison grou
Page 129 and 130:
For each of the three dependent var
Page 131 and 132:
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 133 and 134:
Employment may help prevent drug re
Page 135 and 136:
group did get some treatment help
Page 137 and 138:
Recommendations: 2. Correctional ad
Page 139 and 140:
an inmate gets closer to hisher min
Page 141 and 142:
Findings suggested that certain inm
Page 143 and 144:
e Finding: TC programs varied littl
Page 145 and 146:
an evaluation study can be linked w
Page 147 and 148:
and Ryder, 2001; Travis and Petersi
Page 149 and 150:
References Andrews, Donald A. (1995
Page 151 and 152:
Derogatis, L.R., H. Yevzeroff, and
Page 153 and 154:
Hiller, Matthew L.; Knight, Kevin,
Page 155 and 156:
the Physician Leadership on Nationa
Page 157 and 158:
Palmer, Ted. (1995) "Programmatic a
Page 159 and 160:
Simpson, D. Dwayne (1994) TCUPTA Fo
Page 161 and 162:
U.S. Department of Justice (1998) S
Page 163 and 164:
Criminal Justice. U.S. GPO. No. 198
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix I. Overview of DOC Databas
Page 167 and 168:
INMATE RECORDS SYSTEM This database
Page 169 and 170:
Inmate (Program Participant) Interv
Page 171 and 172:
' Appendix 3. Subject Consent Form
Page 173 and 174:
Confidentiali@/Anonymitv I understa
Page 175 and 176:
DRUG SCREEN PLEASE COMPLETE ALL INF
Page 177 and 178:
@ Appendix 5. TCU Resident Evaluati
Page 179 and 180:
EVALUATION OF SELF AND TIiEATMENT (
Page 181 and 182:
EVALUATION OF SELF AND TREATMENT (C
Page 183 and 184:
EVALUATION OF SELF AND TREATMENT (C
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix 6. TCU Counselor Rating of
Page 187 and 188:
COUNSELOR RATING OF CLIENT (CONTINU
Page 189 and 190:
@ INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM REPORTS: DOC-T
Page 191 and 192:
pattern, chemical abuse and health
Page 193 and 194:
~ on the inmate with respect to pre
Page 195 and 196:
1. Presence of AOD problem that has
Page 197 and 198:
@ and consists of suggestions on ho
Page 199 and 200:
0 tasks, the inmate must receive a
Page 201 and 202:
StaffDemographics (fidl time AOD st
Page 203 and 204:
@ provided describing drug and alco
Page 205 and 206:
The Inmate Handbook also lists reas
Page 207 and 208:
Examples of Phase I1 problem areas
Page 209 and 210:
counselor and through institutional
Page 211 and 212:
9. What are the criteria for succes
Page 213 and 214:
and then listing an alternative ass
Page 215 and 216:
Finally, in Phase IV the inmate is
Page 217 and 218:
INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM REPORTS: DOC-TEM
Page 219 and 220:
Specific Program Content and Struct
Page 221:
Name of Staff Member: Job Title: Hi
show all

0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?