This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.

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.

This study was an evaluation of the Los Angeles County Drug Treatment Boot Camp (DTBC). This site was selected because it was one of the earliest boot camps in the nation designed specifically for juvenile offenders. The program enrolled only male offenders between the ages of 16 and 18, who were either documented or alleged drug users with sustained petitions by the juvenile courts for non-violent and non-sex offenses. The main goal of the study was to use a combination of official and self-report measures to assess the effectiveness of the DTBC as a correctional model for juvenile offenders with a focus on their substance-abusing behavior. The study consisted of three independent data collection components: (1) a comparison of official recidivism rates between matched boot camp graduates and non-boot camp graduates over a five-year observation period (Part 1, Official Records Data for Matched Samples), (2) a cross-sectional comparison of self-reports between boot camp and non-boot camp graduates over a 12-month observation period (Part 2, Twelve-Month Self-Report Data), and (3) a pre- and post-test of a boot camp cohort over a six-month observation period (Part 3, Pre- and Post-Test Self-Report Data). Part 1 variables include camp entry and exit dates, sustained petition for camp entry, prior arrests, age at first arrest, most serious charge at first arrest, number of post-camp arrests, most serious charge for post-camp arrests, and number of probation violations post-camp. For Parts 2 and 3, the study utilized the well-established International Self-Report Delinquency questionnaire to assess the youths' post-camp delinquent activities. The instrument contained measures on (1) the types of crimes committed during a specified time frame, (2) the frequency of these delinquent acts, (3) the onset of each admitted offense, (4) the circumstances of the incidents, and (5) a set of sociodemographic variables including attitudes toward school and work, living arrangement, and circle of friends. Demographic variables include age, ethnicity, and country of birth.

The objective of this process evaluation was to evaluate the integrity of the Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Red Wing Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program service delivery system in order to (1) provide feedback designed to enhance the existing strengths of the RSAT program and improve any existing or potential weaknesses, and (2) prepare for a subsequent outcome evaluation. The process evaluation data consist of two administrations of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES) (Parts 1 and 2) and three rounds of Rating of Facilitation of RSAT Groups (Parts 3-5). Resident-participants in this study were male juvenile offenders incarcerated at the MCF-Red Wing who had been determined to have significant substance abuse problems as an aspect of their delinquency. A total of 69 residents participated in the RSAT program during the course of the evaluation. All RSAT program residents were required to participate in all aspects of the program. Four caseworkers, one chemical dependency counselor, and two teachers participated in all aspects of the process evaluation. Ten corrections officers and three administrators participated in the CIES administration. There are four forms of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES): (1) The Real Form (Form R), (2) the Short Form (Form S), (3) the Ideal Form (Form I), and (4) the Expectations Form (Form E). Form R and Form I were employed in this study. Form R measures resident and staff perceptions of the current or "actual" climate of the program. Form I is worded to allow residents and staff to answer questions in terms of an ideal program. Both forms are comprised of 90 true-false statements. The CIES was administered twice for this study, with the first administration in September 1999. Participants in this administration of the CIES were 28 residents of the Princeton Cottage (the cottage that housed the RSAT participants) and 12 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The second administration was in December 1999. Participants in this administration were 25 residents of the Princeton Cottage and 10 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The surveys were collected and sent to Marquette University investigators for scoring and interpretation. An extensive evaluation of group facilitation was undertaken, with all groups videotaped between May 1999 and September 1999. These videotapes were shipped to Marquette University for review. In total, 122 videotapes were reviewed and rated. Two randomly selected raters evaluated each tape on the 22-item Red Wing Global Scale developed for this evaluation. The primary components of the sessions evaluated by the rating scale involved (1) the adherence of the facilitators to the treatment model, (2) the skill level of the facilitators, and (3) the contribution of the residents to the group processes. Following training, the raters began rating the videotapes in a progression of three rounds (each round consisting of a month) conducted in June, August, and October of 1999.

This state profile includes data from facilities in Virginia that reported to N-SSATS for the survey reference date March 31, 2010. Data were collected on the location, characteristics, services offered, and number of clients in treatment at alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities (both public and private) in Virginia. In Virginia, 208 substance abuse treatment facilities were included in the 2010 N-SSATS, reporting that there were 19,265 clients in substance abuse treatment on March 31, 2010. The survey response rate in Virginia was 89.5%.

This study assessed the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC) in Texas. The DCJTC is a residential substance abuse treatment center for drug-involved felony offenders. It provides a treatment program of approximately six months in three major phases: orientation, main treatment, and re-entry. Data were collected from 429 offenders admitted to the DCJTC between January and December 1998. During their first week of treatment, residents completed a comprehensive intake battery that included (1) the Texas Christian University (TCU) initial assessment, (2) the TCU self-rating form (SRF), and (3) the TCU intake interview. The initial assessment gauged mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological status. The SRF assessed psychological functioning, social functioning, and motivation for treatment. The intake interview included detailed questions on the resident's social background, family and peer relations, health and psychological status, criminal history, drug use problems, and behavioral risks for HIV/AIDS. Progress made during treatment was measured by the TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) and the TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms. The REST included all questions on the SRF, plus questions on offenders' perceptions of the structure of the program and their experiences while in treatment, an evaluation of the counselor, an evaluation of their own personality, and ratings of group and individual treatment sessions. The CRC forms rated residents on a set of attributes related to residents' ability to benefit from treatment and indicated the extent to which counseling activities with each client had focused on certain activities.

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.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This is a quasi-experimental, observational study using administrative data to assess whether time in juvenile placement was associated with the acquisition of social-emotional skills and subsequent felony recidivism. Concurrent with a change in juvenile sentencing policy in Washington State a comprehensive risk and needs assessment tool (R-PACT) was piloted to investigate the impact that therapeutically oriented incarceration had on youth. This tool was made up of 12 domains of risk and needs, including a section on dynamic factors related to therapeutic skills. Youth were admitted into the study in two cohorts, a main study cohort and a replication study cohort.

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.