DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03540
title: Evaluation of Prison-Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania, 2000-2001
title: Archival Version

description: The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment
process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who
participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or
comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine
more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment
process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to
explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and
policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple
post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug
treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons:
Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched
comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated
in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education
and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive
treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment
sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New
subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment
programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates
admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were
collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued
throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful
vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional
self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate
perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked
to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in
treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological
functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after
six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if
the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of
inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month,
six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After
release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time
to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment.
Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and
their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the
Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU
(Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional
Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected
from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and
program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment
(REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in
Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research
and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and
TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4)
Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were
collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,
Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of
Corrections inmate records system.
description: The purpose of this study was to examine multiple
 treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who
 participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or
 comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of
 Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine
 more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment
 process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies had done in
 order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment
 programming and policies. The study aimed to address gaps in the
 current knowledge about prison treatment programs. There were several
 questions that the researchers focused on: (1) How was quality of
 program implementation related to treatment outcomes? (2) How were
 drug and alcohol needs assessments conducted, and how did needs
 assessments influence treatment process and outcomes? (3) Were inmates
 with different levels and types of need matched with appropriate
 treatment? (4) To what degree did appropriate assessment and program
 placement moderate treatment effects? (5) What kinds of inmates were
 best suited for Therapeutic Communities? (6) What magnitude of
 treatment effect was to be expected from TC if appropriate extraneous
influences were controlled for in analyses?
description: Researchers examined in-treatment measures and
 multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug
 treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons,
 Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched
 comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated
 in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education
 and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive
 treatment slots at the five institutions. The comparison groups were
 constructed based upon known predictors such as drug dependency, need
 for treatment, and criminal history. Process and outcome measures
 incorporated a range of institutional measures (e.g., misconducts),
 intermediate measures (e.g., attitudinal and behavioral change,
 participation in treatment), and post-release measures (e.g., drug
 relapse, rearrest and reincarceration, employment, levels of parole
 supervision). In order to create adequate comparison groups, formal
 classification assessments and drug and alcohol assessments were
 conducted on all inmates. The average scores on the Pennsylvania
 Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI) and the Texas
 Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen were examined for inmates in
 each program to determine how many inmates fell into low, medium, and
 high need categories. Because a shortage of space precluded
 intensively treating all those who were assessed with a high need for
 alcohol or other drug (AOD) treatment, a large pool of eligible
 offenders assigned to less intensive forms of treatment (e.g.,
 outpatient treatment, drug education, or ancillary groups) was
 accessible for inclusion in the matched comparison sample. Included in
 the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1,
 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to
 treatment programs. For each inmate admitted to an AOD treatment
 program during the study period, researchers collected the treatment
 start date, the discharge date, and the treatment outcome. Between
 January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or
 discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a
 monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to
 determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC
 clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that
 tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the
 treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete
 periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. TC
 clients were asked to complete the Resident Evaluation of Self and
 Treatment (REST) form and TC counselors were asked to complete the
 Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) form. Self-reports of treatment
 process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days
 after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12
 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer
 than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment
 were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following
 admission to treatment. Standardized drug scores were calculated based
 on the inmate's TCU Drug Screen score, if available, or the inmate's
 PACSI score, if the TCU was not available. Because the TCU is a 0-9
 scale, and the PACSI is a 0-10 scale, scores were transformed into
 standardized z-scores. After release, both treatment and comparison
 groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration,
 drug use, and employment. Inmates were informed that their
 participation in the research was voluntary, and they were asked to
 sign a Subject Consent Form. The researchers retained the
 responsibility to maintain the security and confidentiality of all
 information obtained from the inmates during all data collection and
 analyses. At the time of the creation of this dataset, 247 TC inmates
 and 809 Comparison inmates had been released from prison, with
follow-up periods extending up to 18 months.
description: Measures can be broken down into the following four
 categories and their sources: (1) Inmates Background Factors were
 collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT),
 the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument
 (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen.
 Variables for include offenders' age, psychological status such as
 depression and anxiety, and assessed need for alcohol and other drug
 treatment. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the
 Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections
 Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident
 Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. Variables include
 misconducts and levels of program participation. (3) Intermediate or
 "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal
 Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU
 Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of
 Self and Treatment (REST) forms. Variables include treatment process
 (e.g., length of time in treatment, degree of involvement in
 treatment), inmate ratings of treatment program features,
 participation in therapeutic groups, counselor attitudes and behavior,
 resident attitudes and behavior and counseling sessions, psychosocial
 functioning (self-esteem, depression, anxiety, decision-making), and
 social functioning (e.g., hostility, risk-taking, and social
 conformity). (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release
 from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation
 and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the
 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the
 Department of Corrections inmate records system. Variables include
 relapse to drug use (type of drug, frequency of use), rearrest or
 warrant issued (number and type of offenses, survival rate),
 reincarceration (number and type of offenses, survival rate), parole
 violation or revocation, and post-release employment status (e.g.,
 full-time, part-time, unemployed and able to work, unemployed and
unable to work).
description: Response Rates: Response rates for TC samples (i.e., completion
 of Consent, Drug Screen and REST forms) were 86 percent. The response
 rates for inmates in the Comparison samples (Subject Consent forms and
TCU Drug Screen forms) were 51 percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Likert scales were used in the TCU Resident Evaluation
 of Self and Treatment (REST) form and the TCU Counselor Rating of
 Client (CRC) form. Also used in the study are the Pennsylvania
 Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of
 Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the Texas Christian
University (TCU) Drug Screen.
description: Inmates in five Pennsylvania prisons that were placed in
 Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs made up the TC
 treatment groups. Comparison treatment groups were made up of
 TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of
 treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment
 groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five
 institutions. Included in the sample were all current TC residents as
 of January 1, 2000. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, new
 subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment
programs.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Evaluation of Prison-Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania, 2000-2001
description: All inmates in five Pennsylvania state prisons who had a
high need for alcohol and drug treatment in 2000.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.