Despite a growing realization that unmeasured programmatic differences influence prison-based drug treatment effectiveness, few attempts to systematically measure such differences have been made. To improve program planning and evaluation in this area, we developed a census instrument to collect descriptive information about 118 prisonbased drug treatment programs in 24 state prisons. The census assessed program content and structure (e.g., program type, duration, and primary treatment approach), program staff (e.g., duties and staffing ratios), and inmates (e.g., eligibility and intake procedures). Collection of descriptive program information can greatly facilitate drug treatment program and policy planning, and meaningfully inform the design of subsequent outcome evaluations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A. (1995, October 11-14). Assessing programelements for risk reduction: The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI).Paper presented at the “Research to Results” Conference, sponsored by IARCA, Ottawa, Canada.
2.
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P.,& Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
3.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, action and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Austin, J. (1998). The limits of prison drug treatment. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 66-74.
5.
Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2001). Prisoners in 2000(NCJ-188207). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply(pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). BJS corrections data collections. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm
8.
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system(NCJ 182410) (pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
9.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model and method. New York: Springer-Verlag.
10.
Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., Cartier, J., Wexler, H., Knight, K., & Anglin, M. D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs. The Prison Journal, 79, 150-162.
11.
Fletcher, B. W., & Tims, F. M. (1992). Methodological issues: Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails(NIDA Monograph No. 118; pp. 246-260). Rockville, MD: Government Printing Office.
12.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply(pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correctional program assessment inventory (CPAI) answer form(4th ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University.
14.
Harrison, L. D., & Martin, S. S. (2003). Residential substance abuse treatment for state prisoners: Implementation lessons learned (NCJ 195738). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
15.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Risk factors that predict dropout from corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79, 411-430.
17.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Inciardi, J. A. (1994) Screening and assessment for alcohol and other drug abuse among adults in the criminal justice system(Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series 7; DHHS Publication No. [SMA] 94B2076). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
19.
Inciardi, J. A. (1995). The therapeutic community: An effective model for corrections-based drug abuse treatment. In K. C. Haas & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), The dilemmas of punishment(pp. 406-417). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
20.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S.Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M.,& Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278.
21.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Lockwood, D., Hooper, R. M., & Wald, B. M. (1992). Obstacles to the implementation and evaluation of drug treatment programs in correctional settings: Reviewing the Delaware KEY experience. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails(NIDA Monograph No. 118; pp. 176-191). Rockville, MD: Government Printing Office.
22.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
23.
Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes inprison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79, 321-333.
24.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). Importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29.
25.
Linhorst, D. M., Knight, K., Johnston, J. S., & Trickey, M. (2001). Situational influences on the implementation of a prison-based therapeutic community. The Prison Journal, 81, 436-453.
26.
Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision(NCJ 157642). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
27.
Lipton, D. S., Falkin, G. P., & Wexler, H. K. (1992). Correctional drug abuse treatment in the United States: An overview. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails(NIDA Monograph No. 118; pp. 8-30). Rockville, MD: Government Printing Office.
28.
Lipton, D. S.,& Pearson, F. S. (1998, November 10). The effectiveness of correctional treatment revisited: Preliminary meta-analytic findings from the CDATE study. Paper presented at the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP) meeting, Washington, DC.
29.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A.,& Inciardi, J. A. (1995). Assessment of a multistage therapeuticcommunity for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 27, 109-116.
30.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A.,& Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. Prison Journal, 79, 294-320.
31.
Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. (2001). Making the next step: Using Evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81, 454-472.
32.
Melnick, G., & De Leon, G. (1999). Clarifying the nature of therapeutic community treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 16, 307-313.
33.
Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D. L., & Wilson, D. B. (2002). The effectiveness of incarcerationbased drug treatment on offending and drug use: An empirical synthesis of the research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago.
34.
Mumola, C. J. (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, state and federal prisoners, 1997(Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report; NCJ-172871). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
35.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1981). Drug abuse treatment in prisons(Treatment Research Report Series). Washington, DC: Author.
36.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide(NIH-99-4180). Washington, DC: National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
37.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (1996). Treatment protocol effectiveness study. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
39.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (1999). Therapeutic communities in correctional settings: The prison based TC standards development project. Final report of phase II(NCJ-179365). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
40.
Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime and Delinquency, 41,100-131.
42.
Pearson, F. S.,& Lipton, D. S. (1999). Ameta-analytic reviewof the effectiveness of correctionsbased treatments for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79, 384-410.
43.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2001). Philosophy and framework: Alcohol and other drug treatment. Camp Hill: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Bureau of Inmate Services.
44.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2002). Monthly population report as of January 31, 2002. Retrieved February 15, 2003, from http://www.cor.state.pa.us/info.html
45.
Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., & Edens, J. F. (1998). Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence disorders among prison inmates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24, 573-587.
46.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Shearer, R. A., & Carter, C. S. (1999) Screening and assessing substance-abusing offenders: Quantity and quality. Federal Probation, 63, 30-34.
48.
Simpson, D. D. (1994). TCU/PTAforms manual: Texas prison-based treatment assessment (PTA Project). Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research.
49.
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Rowan-Szal, G. A. (1997). Program diversity and treatment retention rates in the drug abuse treatment study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 279-293.
50.
Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (1998). TCU data collection forms for correctional residential treatment. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.ibr.tcu.edu
51.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2000). Substance abuse treatment in adult and juvenile correctional facilities: Findings from the uniform facility data set, 1997 survey of correctional facilities. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.samhsa.gov/OAS/UFDS/CorrectionalFacilities97/CorrectionalFacilities97.pdf
52.
Taxman, F.,& Bouffard, J. (2002). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. The Prison Journal, 82, 189-212.
53.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). State and Federal Corrections Information Systems: An Inventory of Data Elements and an Assessment of Reporting Capabilities(NCJ 171686; joint project between Association of State Correctional Administrators; Corrections Program Office, Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Statistics; and National Institute of Justice). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
54.
Welsh, W. N. (2001). Building effective research collaboration between the Center for Public Policy at Temple University and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections(Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant #98-CE-VX-0016). Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for Public Policy. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197067.pdf
55.
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (1999). Criminal justice policy and planning. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
56.
Welsh, W. N.,& Zajac, G. (2001). Assessing prison-based drug and alcohol treatment: Pennsylvania’s ongoing reviewhas improved programming. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 1(6), 83-84, 90-93.
57.
Welsh, W. N., Zajac, G., Gnall, K., West, H., & Close, D. (2001). Assessing prison-based drug and alcohol treatment: Aresearch partnership between the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Corrections and the Center for Public Policy at Temple University. In The state of corrections. 2000 proceedings, American Correctional Association annual conferences(pp. 229-245). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
58.
Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79, 321-333.
59.
Yeaton, W. H.,& Wortman, P. M. (1993). On the reliability of meta-analytic reviews: The role of intercoder agreement. Evaluation Review, 17, 292-309.
60.
Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 27-55.
61.
Zajac, G. (2002). Knowledge creation, utilization and public policy: How do we know what we know in criminology? Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 251-254.
