The Inmate Prerelease Assessment (IPASS) was developed specifically as a measure of postrelease risk for prison-based treatment graduates. By taking into account historical drug use and criminal activity of inmates as well as their performance during prison-based treatment, the IPASS provides a “priority” score indicating the relative need for more (versus less) intensive treatment services on release. The present study used data from offenders paroling from prisons in a southwest (N = 127) and midwest (N = 75) state to examine the psychometric properties of the IPASS subscales. With regard to construct validity, psychometric properties ranged from good to excellent. The IPASS scales also showed strong internal consistency, with coefficient alphas greater than .80 for the Texas Christian University Drug Screen, Client Evaluation of Treatment, and Counselor Evaluation of Client scales. Further research will explore alternatives on how the Client and Counselor scales are optimally incorporated into the IPASS priority score and will examine the score in relation to aftercare participation and postrelease outcomes.
Anglin, M.D., Prendergast, M.L., Farabee, D., & Cartier, J. (2002). Annual report on the Substance Abuse Program at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran: A report to the California legislature. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections.
2.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107, 238-246.
3.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Burdon, W.M., Farabee, D., Prendergast, M.L., Messina, N.P., & Cartier, J. (2002). Prison-based therapeutic community programs: Implementation and operational issues. Federal Probation, 66(3), 3-8.
7.
Byrne, B.M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
8.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
9.
Deitch, D. (2000a, June). Custody Reentry Instrument Development Symposium, sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Addiction Technology Transfer Center, University of South Florida, and the California Department of Corrections, San Diego.
10.
Deitch, D. (2000b, August). Corrections Treatment Assessment Consortium Meeting, sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Addiction Technology Transfer Center, University of South Florida, and the California Department of Corrections, San Diego,
11.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model and method . New York: Springer.
12.
Farabee, D., Leukefeld, C.G., & Hays, L.R. (1998). Accessing drug abuse treatment: Perceptions of out-of-treatment injectors. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 381-394.
13.
Farabee, D., Prendergast, M.L., Cartier, J., Wexler, W., Knight.K., & Anglin, M.D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional treatment programs. The Prison Journal, 79, 150-162.
14.
Garner, B.R., Knight, K., Flynn, P.M., Morey, J.T., & Simpson, D.D. (2007). Measuring offender attributes and engagement in treatment using the Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1113-1130.
15.
Goldbart, S. (1982). Systemic barriers to addict aftercare program implementation. Journal of Drug Issues, 4, 415-430.
16.
Griffith, J.D., Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D.D. (1999). A cost-effective analysis of in-prison therapeutic community treatment and risk classification. The Prison Journal , 79, 352-368.
17.
Grove, W.M., & Meehl, P.E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2, 293-323.
18.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Publisher.
19.
Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., Leukefeld, C., & Simpson, D.D. (2002). Motivation as a predictor of therapeutic engagement in mandated residential substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 56-75.
20.
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.
Hoffman, P.B., & Beck, J.L. (1974). Parole decision-making: A salient factor score . Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 195-206.
23.
Hoffman, P.B., & Beck, J.L. (1985). Recidivism among released federal prisoners: Salient factor score and five-year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 501-507.
24.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
25.
Knight, K., & Farabee, D. (2000, August). Pre-reentry assessment of substance abuse treatment needs and assessment of risks for criminality. Presented at the Correctional Treatment Assessment Consortium Symposium, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry.
26.
Knight, K., Hiller, M.L., Broome, K.M., & Simpson, D.D. (2000). Legal pressure, treatment readiness, and engagement in long-term residential programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 31, 101-115.
27.
Knight, K., Simpson, D.D., & Hiller, M.L. (1999). 3-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal , 79, 337-351.
28.
Knight, K., Simpson, D.D., & Hiller, M.L. (2002). Screening and referral for substance-abuse treatment in the criminal justice system. In C. G. Leukefeld , F. M. Tims, & D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues (pp. 259-272). New York: Springer.
29.
Lattimore, P.K., Visher, C.A., & Linster, R.L. (1995). Predicting rearrest for violence among serious youthful offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 32, 54-83.
30.
Lowe, L., Wexler, H.K., & Peters, J. (1998). The R.J. Donovan In-Prison and Community Substance Abuse Program: Three-year return to custody data. Sacramento : California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Programs.
31.
McBride, D., & Inciardi, J.A. (1993). The Focused Offender Disposition Program: Philosophy, procedures, and preliminary findings. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 143-160.
32.
Peters, R.H., Greenbaum, P.E., Steinberg, M.L., Carter, C.R., Ortiz, M.M., Fry, B.C., et al. (2000). Effectiveness of screening instruments in detecting substance use disorders among prisoners. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 349-358.
33.
Simpson, D.D., Joe, G., & Brown, B. (1997). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 294-307.
34.
Simpson, D.D., Joe, G.W., Rowan-Szal, G.A., & Greener, J.M. (1995). Client engagement and change during drug abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7, 117-134.
35.
Simpson, D.D., & Knight, K. (2001). TCU model of treatment process and outcomes in correctional settings. In A. Fins (Ed.), State of corrections (pp. 211-221). Washington, DC: American Correctional Association.
36.
Weekes, J.R., Milison, W.A., & Lightfoot, L.O. (2001). Factors influencing the outcome of offender substance abuse treatment. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e073/e073c.shtml
37.
Wexler, H.K., Melnick, G.D., & Cao, Y. (2004). Risk and prison substance abuse treatment outcomes: A replication and challenge. The Prison Journal, 84, 106-120.
38.
Wexler, H.K., Melnick, G.D., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79, 321-336.
