The study investigated self-sufficiency, community adjustment, substance use, and criminal recidivism outcomes for substance abusing offenders served through the Washington County (Oregon) Community Corrections Department (WCCC) to document the value-added of providing substance-free transitional housing services. The study addressed the value-added of Oxford House and other transitional housing services to the combination of services offenders receive, and documented the relative costs and benefits of substance-free transitional housing services. Individuals were eligible for the study if they entered Oxford Houses, entered some other form of substance-free transitional housing, or could benefit from, but did not enter, any form of substance-free transitional housing. A total of 356 supervisees were eligible for the study; 301 agreed to participate in baseline interviews, and 238 participated in 12-month follow-up interviews. The study included both interview data collection and administrative records data collection. The research team also collected Housing Data (Part 2) from the housing section of the interviews and Treatment Data (Part 3) from a statewide treatment database.

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

The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.

This study was an outcome evaluation of the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC), a six-month residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) facility in Dallas County, Texas. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess offender recidivism following treatment in this six-month community-based modified therapeutic community for probationers. Secondary goals were to examine change in social functioning over time among probationers mandated to this program, to determine which characteristics at intake and which during-treatment social functioning indicators were predictive of dropping out of treatment early, and to identify which indicators predicted being arrested one to two years after treatment. These goals were accomplished by a comparison of outcomes between treated probationers and an untreated comparison group and by an assessment of the relationships among treatment, social functioning, and recidivism. For both treatment and comparison groups, a criminal records search was performed on the Institutional Division database of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for all of the study participants for the two years following discharge for treatment or following commitment to probation. In addition to these records, treatment participants were asked to complete a set of data collection forms over their course of treatment. These forms collected information about mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, substance abuse, psychological status, offenders' perceptions of the program and their experiences in treatment, evaluations of counselors, self-evaluations, and counselors' evaluations of clients.

In 1996, Washington State's Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented "New Horizons" (referred to as "First Chance" from its inception in late 1996 to early 2000), a residential therapeutic treatment community for drug-addicted women offenders housed within the Pine Lodge Pre-Release minimum security and co-ed facility in the northeastern part of the state. The target population for the program was women who had been screened and identified as having a serious substance abuse problem and who had 12 months or less to serve on their sentences. Maximum capacity for this program was established at 72 treatment slots with members of the therapeutic community residing together and separate from the rest of the general population. The program approaches addiction as a biopsychosocial disease and strives to restructure and develop pro-social cognitive, behavioral, and affective skills of addicted women offenders. This study investigated (1) factors that affected successful completion of the program, and (2) outcomes (i.e., recidivism) for Pine Lodge participants compared to outcomes for a control group. This project was funded by the National Institute Justice as part of its initiative for local evaluations of prison-based residential substance abuse treatment programs. Data represent an outcome evaluation for Pine Lodge residents compared to outcomes for a matched control group provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections. Through a case-by-case examination of the datasets from Pine Lodge and the Washington State DOC, the researchers created a data file that contained program completion/non-completion data and demographic variables for 322 Pine Lodge participants and a control group of 279 women. Variables include the month and year admitted to the Pine Lodge program, reason for leaving the program, race/ethnicity, crime committed, month and year started the program, sentence length, age, number of months in the program, education level, number of previous offenses, number of months at risk to reoffend, whether reconvicted after release, number of months between release and reconviction, and reconviction offense.

This data collection consists of a process and outcome evaluation of the Ozark Correctional Center Drug Treatment Program (OCCDTP), located in an all-male, 650-bed minimum security prison. For the process evaluation, the principal investigators evaluated changes in OCCDTP treatment activities, characteristics of OCCDTP participants, utilization of aftercare, and participant ratings of the program and aftercare. For the outcome evaluation the researchers compared how well program graduates fared after program completion with respect to relapse and recidivism compared to program dropouts, as well as to a comparison group of inmates who did not participate in the OCCDTP. Data were collected from the Missouri Department of Corrections, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, a psychosocial assessment of clients entering the OCCDPT program, and three-month and 12-month follow-up surveys. Variables include background and demographic information, such as race, marital status, religious preference, and education level, as well as information on mental health, substance abuse, criminal history, nature of offenses, recidivism, clients' perceptions of the program, participation in aftercare, and social and clinical data.

The State of Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Office of Substance Abuse (OSA) at the Maine Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services opened the Key Maine Therapeutic Community (TC) in March 1999, and its Transitional Treatment Program (TTP) for adult male inmates in January 2000. Spectrum Behavioral Services, Inc. (SBC) was subcontracted to implement the program, which was located at the Maine Correctional Facility in South Windham and the Pre-Release Center in Hallowell. The United States Department of Justice Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) funded the initiative. This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the program. To accomplish the aims of the process evaluation, research staff examined both program and client-level data that were collected throughout the first 15 months of the Key Maine TC's operation, a period that included the initial start-up period for the TTP. Part 1, Baseline Data, contains information on inmates, including age, ethnic group, education level, timing of all diplomas or degrees they had received, reasons for stopping school, marital and/or relationship status and history, and number and ages of children. The file also includes information on the last six months before being incarcerated, such as attendance at religious services, kind of housing and time spent there, as well as whom they lived with and the behavior of the inmate and their living companions in terms of alcohol and drug use. Also, there is information about how respondents supported themselves financially, including employment status and job information, such as number of days worked, number of jobs, part-time or full-time status, income, supplemental income, drug and alcohol use effects on employment, and whether they had dependants to support. In addition to information on the six months before incarceration, the file provides information on the inmate's substance abuse behaviors over his lifetime, including specific drugs used, the frequency used, and the age at which use of particular substances began. Information on substance abuse behaviors, such as specific substances used and frequency used in the last 30 days, is also recorded. Other variables in Part 1 focus on whether inmates' substance abuse had caused problems in major areas of their lives, such as family, employment, school, physical and mental health, relationships, and other substance abuse treatment received, including the type of treatment, duration of treatment, main substance abused, and reasons for entering treatment. Self-report data are available on each inmate's lifetime history of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, arrest history. This includes the offense(s) for which the inmate was currently serving time, as well as past offenses, jail time served, number of times incarcerated, illegal activities in which the inmate engaged during the last six months before incarceration, and time spent in probation during the last six months before incarceration. Information on visitors received during time in jail and contact (phone calls and letters) with others while in jail are included, as well as personal history information concerning the inmate's relationship with family and the activities they engaged in together. There is information on the friends the inmate had during the six months before incarceration, such as their education level, employment status, and relationship with family. Additional variables include whether the inmate reported having a history of child abuse, with details such as age at time of abuse, relationship with the abuser, frequency of abuse, perceived association of child abuse history to the inmate's substance abuse, the inmate's history as both victim of and perpetrator of violent crimes and weapon use, the inmate's sexual activity during the six months before incarceration, and his opinions about the chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Other items pertain

The Other Way (TOW) program is an intensive residential substance abuse treatment program housed at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa. TOW is a voluntary, six-month program that works with inmates to identify the causes of their addictive behaviors and encourage changes in unacceptable behaviors and criminal thinking. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation conducted an evaluation of TOW from October 1997 through March 2001. The Iowa Consortium worked extensively with the Clarinda TWO treatment staff to identify valid and reliable instruments that measured substance use and abuse, mental health and personality characteristics, criminal behavior and attitudes, social support, and involvement in education, employment, and therapeutic activities. These instruments were used to collect data at intake and discharge. Additionally, the researchers conducted a six-month follow-up of inmates to determine their post-program experiences as well as recidivism. Part 1 (Clinical and Recidivism Data) consists of selected variables gathered during the clinical interviews administered to program participants at intake and discharge, as well as recidivism data from the Department of Corrections. Part 2 (Follow-Up Data) consists of variables from the Addiction Severity Index, which were collected during the six-month follow-up telephone interview.

The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.