Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995

This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process
and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
(RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991
Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as
well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug
treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment
process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment
assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and
outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC
treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of
prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to
an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end
of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following
an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files
for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle
Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the
number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment
Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort,
Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge
codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare.
Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity,
age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication,
followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in
elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of
his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him,
whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol,
inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6
(Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the
respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical
problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had
trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life,
lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was
caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and
accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the
counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him
problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking
clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in
treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the
respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted,
anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed,
rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the
respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends,
ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever
arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last
week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction,
disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities
in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges,
individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff
and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation,
drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the
counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building
confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the
respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got
along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs
together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in
the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he
was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with
old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six
months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other
opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group):
Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational
Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a
GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the
respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational
training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt
drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year
the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery,
fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or
vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health,
relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the
respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug
treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended,
whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other
relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior
engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and
unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation
Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison
Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of
treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting,
problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of
drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number
of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17
(Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and
Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up
Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its
source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up
(Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or
opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort
and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if
parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the
National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment
condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.

Tags: addiction, alcohol-abuse, correctional-facilities, drug-related-crimes, drug-use, inmate-programs, outcome-evaluation, process-evaluation, recidivism, residential-programs, substance-abuse, substance-abuse-treatment, treatment-outcome, treatment-programs
Organization: Department of Justice