DOI: 10.3886/icpsr27961.v1
title: Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Targeted Intervention Components (TIC) for Correctional Re-Entry Programs, 2002-2008 [United States]
title: Version 1

description: Targeted Intervention Components (TIC) for Correctional Re-Entry Programs is three-year study with the established guidelines and resources for an evidence-based library of targeted treatment intervention components for outpatient (e.g., crimes of moderate severity) re-entry correctional programs. It involves no-fee, user-friendly, and manual-guided techniques that can be integrated with programmatic assessments of client needs and progress.
The TIC study, under Texas Christian University's (TCU) leadership,
involved developing and testing a series of brief (4-session), flexible, evidence-based treatment interventions targeting specific offender problems. These interventions employed a user-friendly modular format that does not require extensive staff training, and the modules themselves are intended to serve either as stand-alone interventions or as components of a comprehensive
treatment program. The initial modules are currently being developed and tested in prison-based treatment settings.
A series of field trials test and validate each of these specialized therapeutic modules for use with community-based correctional populations. The TCU developed a treatment model which provided conceptual and scientific foundations for the use of targeted interventions that addressed discretely client problems. Study questionnaires assessed client responses that were related to such topics as: treatment readiness and motivation, anger and hostility, criminal thinking, risky behaviors for HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis C, communication, and other social skill deficits.
The TCU's Criminal Justice Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CJ-CEST) was implemented as the core "needs and engagement" assessment instrument.
description: TIC's main objective was to establish a set of targeted interventions that addressed counseling needs in community re-entry treatment programs, met "evidence-based" standards of effectiveness for correctional populations, represent brief, flexible, and focused treatment tools, and could be readily adopted as user-friendly and manual-guided applications.
The specific aims were to select and adapt appropriate evidence-based behavioral and cognitive treatment resources for use in applications by community/outpatient correctional programs (see the Appendix for an example of materials on "Dealing with Anger"). In addition, the study focused on the effectiveness of these targeted intervention components for improving short-term treatment engagement and performance indicators using randomized experimental designs with correctional re-entry treatment samples. Finally, client-level assessments of treatment needs and performance (building on results previous studies) were identified to help select and assess the use of appropriate intervention modules.
description: Procedurally, offenders between one and three months of release were presented information about the study and asked to voluntarily participate in the specific TIC intervention. Subjects must have enough time remaining in treatment to be able to complete the intervention and be within 90 days of release. Groups of participants were then randomly assigned to receive either the intervention or be part of a comparison group; in both cases, all participants were asked to complete the pre- and post-TIC assessments. Once the post-TIC assessments have been completed, the intervention was offered to the group of participants in the comparison group. Collaborating RCs and TCU participating facilities made every effort to randomize clients individually using a random numbers table; when assignment by individual was not possible, randomization occurred at the group level. Instructions on how to randomize and a copy of a random numbers table were provided to participating sites.
Participation was completely voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time without penalty. Incentives were not offered (primarily because incentives are not allowed in many of the partner correctional systems).
description: TIC includes 6 targeted interventions which assessed the following amount of variables: (1) Anger: 172 variables, (2) HIV:102 variables, (3) Criminal Thinking: 20 variables, (4) Communication: 20 variables, (5) Motivation: 24 variables, and (6) Social: 20 variables. The variables addressed problems involving readiness for recovery, treatment motivation, criminal thinking, session attendance/participation, counseling relationships, depression, anger/hostility, vocational or educational needs, HIV risk behaviors, etc. Please refer to the manual for more detailed information.
description: Response Rates: Response rates as of December 2007 were as follows:
Anger Management Intervention: Total subjects recruited = 260 (TIC = 138, Comparison = 122, males and females),
Anger Intervention Refusal Rates -- 8 percent,
HIV Intervention: Total subjects recruited = 296 (TIC = 155, Comparison = 141),
HIV Intervention Refusal Rates -- 32 percent,
Criminal Thinking Intervention: Total subjects recruited to date = 490 (TIC = 243, Comparison = 247),
Criminal Thinking Intervention Refusal Rates -- 13 percent,
Communication Intervention: Total recruited to date = 352 (TIC = 182, Comparison = 170),
Communication Intervention Refusal Rates -- 10 percent,
Motivation Intervention: Total subjects recruited to date = 345 (TIC = 171, Comparison = 174),
Motivation Intervention Refusal Rates -- 38 percent,
Social Intervention: Total subjects recruited to date = 164 (TIC = 78, Comparison = 86),
Social Intervention Refusal Rates -- 28 percent.
Please see http://www.cjdats.org/Documents/CJDATS_BR_for_TIC_(TCU08-May20).doc for more details.
description: Presence of Common Scales: This study utilized the TCU Criminal Justice Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CJ-CEST). The CJ-CEST is a 130-item, 18-scale assessment based on an adaptation of other TCU scales, including the following 3 motivational scales: Desire for Help (DH), Treatment Readiness (TR), and External Pressures (EP).
description: Male and female respondents, 18 years or older, were recruited from various drug treatment programs for offenders in each of the correctional facilities, and assigned either by cohorts or individually to a study condition (TIC or Comparison). Respondents may have received a referral or mandate from a correctional authority (e.g., judge). Subjects must have enough time remaining in treatment to be able to complete the intervention and be within 90 days of release. Subjects were required to be able to read and sign an informed consent form to participate in the study. Participation was completely voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time without penalty. Incentives were not offered (primarily because incentives are not allowed in many of the partner correctional systems).
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Anger Management Intervention 
DS2: HIV Intervention 
DS3: Criminal Thinking Intervention 
DS4: Communication Intervention
DS5: Motivation Intervention
DS6: Social Intervention
description: Adult prison population.
description: cognitive assessment test; face-to-face interview; paper and pencil interview (PAPI); self-enumerated questionnaire; on-site questionnaireSpecial collaborating institutions in this study were the University of California-Los Angeles, the University of Delaware, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Connecticut.