DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02765.v1
title: Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995
title: Version 1

description: 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.
description: The relationship between substance abuse and crime and its impact on society is well documented. Researchers have also found that an overwhelming majority of drug-using offenders who have not received substance abuse treatment are becoming reinvolved in criminal activity as well as returning to their drug of choice within three months after being released from prison. Treatment programs that have been incorporated into the criminal justice system have yielded some promising results related to treatment outcome. A review of studies conducted on prison-based therapeutic communities indicates that such programs are effective in significantly lowering relapse and recidivism rates. Even with more initiatives being implemented toward providing offenders with drug treatment, only through evaluation efforts will questions about the effectiveness and benefits of corrections-based substance abuse treatment programs begin to be more fully answered. This study sought to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with the 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.
description: 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. For Parts 1-4, background and baseline data from Kyle ITC inmates during their last two months of treatment were collected. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, inmates had to consent to participation as a research subject and agree to allow researchers legal access to their data files as well as to search for them in follow-up phases of the project. Those who agreed were asked to complete a set of assessment forms during a series of three one- hour sessions. Session One (Part 5) included a general background questionnaire pertaining to pre-prison sociodemographic characteristics as well as other items, such as criminal and drug use history. Session Two (Part 6) focused on during-treatment measures, such as ratings of the program and treatment staff. Session Three (Part 7) was a collection of standardized measures of addiction as well as cognitive and psychological functioning. Afterwards, a Client Locator File was completed by the inmate to help fieldworkers find him for follow-up interviews. Parts 8 and 9 are the six-month and one-year follow-up interviews with the ITC graduates, respectively. These interviews included measures of criminal recidivism and drug abuse relapse, along with other psychosocial and behavioral measurements. These interviews utilized Correctional Residential Treatment forms created by the researchers at the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University. These forms included a comprehensive set of intake and during-treatment data collection instruments for assessing psychosocial functioning, program structure, and counseling activities and services in residential treatment settings. Researchers were not able to interview the comparison group of parolees prior to their being paroled from the general prison population. Thus, self-reported background and baseline data (Parts 10 and 11, respectively) were collected as part of their 6-month follow-up interviews (Part 12). Part 13 contains the data from the one-year follow-up interviews with the comparison group. While Correctional Residential Treatment forms similar to those given to the ITC graduates were also administered to the comparison group, caution is strongly advised in interpreting differences between the Kyle ITC cohort and the comparison group on these self-reported data because of the possibility of response bias. Parolees from the Kyle cohort, as well as from the comparison group were rewarded monetarily for participation in the study. The six-month and one-year follow-up interviews (for both groups) were each accompanied by status reports provided by parole officers who also took hair samples of the parolee, which underwent clinical analysis. Part 14 contains the reporting data provided by the parole officer at the six-month follow-up interviews, while Part 15 is comprised of the hair specimen data. Parts 16 and 17 make up the reporting data and hair specimen data, respectively, for both groups taken at the time of the one-year follow-up interviews. Part 18 contains data on both the Kyle cohort and the comparison group taken from administrative records data from the Texas Department of Public Safety's Criminal History Records Information which includes data on parolee incarcerations. Part 19 contains administrative records data on both the Kyle cohort and the comparison group taken from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which utilized the parole officer report database. From this database information on an offender's residence, most recent arrest history, and next of kin were obtained.
description: 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 the respondent 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.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used. In Part 19, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score was used.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS2: Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS3: Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS4: Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS5: Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS6: Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS7: Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS8: Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS9: One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort 
 DS10: Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group 
 DS11: Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group 
 DS12: Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group 
 DS13: One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group 
 DS14: Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group 
 DS15: Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group 
 DS16: Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group 
 DS17: Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group 
 DS18: Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group 
 DS19: Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group
description: Male state prison inmates in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice system who had been classified as drug abusers and who had approximately nine to ten months left in their sentences until possible parole. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: All Texas state prison inmates are required to complete a battery of assessments before being sent to their assigned unit. At the time of this study, part of the battery included a screen for drug use. Based on these records, inmates who were classified as drug abusers and who had approximately nine to ten months left until possible parole were identified for review by a treatment referral committee. Inmate records were further screened for illicit drug use, time left to serve, and prior criminal offense. Next, names of eligible inmates were forwarded to the Texas Parole Board for review decisions on ITC placement. The Parole Board considered the ITC committee's recommendation for ITC placement and either accepted or rejected it. In many cases where parole was granted without ITC placement, the Parole Board believed that the inmate would not benefit from, or was inappropriate for, ITC treatment. All subjects participating in this study (Kyle cohort and comparison group) met these eligibility criteria. The treatment sample pool was identified using the Kyle ITC database which included 482 inmates admitted to the treatment program between June 10, 1993, and January 31, 1994 (and who were thereby eligible to graduate between March 10, 1994, and October 31, 1994). All 482 Kyle ITC inmates were targeted for inclusion in the study. The graduation rate for the Kyle ITC program was 80 percent, resulting in 386 inmates. Of these 386 Kyle ITC inmates, 93 were unavailable for assessment (e.g., on temporary medical leave or refused to sign a release form). The Kyle cohort comprised the remaining 293 inmates, who were administered the full set of during-treatment assessments. The comparison group of parolees were selected from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division database and included all available inmates paroled (or scheduled to be paroled) between March and December 1994. There were 103 paroled inmates comprising the sample for the comparison group.