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

Established in 1994, Project ROAR (Reclaiming Our Area Residences) is a public housing drug-crime elimination program sponsored by the Spokane Police Department and the Spokane Housing Authority. This study was undertaken to examine and evaluate the effects and outcomes of Project ROAR as it was implemented in the Parsons' Public Housing Complex, located in downtown Spokane, Washington. In addition, the study sought to determine to what extent the project as implemented reflected Project ROAR as originally conceived, and whether Project ROAR could be considered a comprehensive community policing crime prevention program. Further, the study attempted to determine what effects this collaborative anti-crime program might have on: (1) residents' perceptions of the quality of their neighborhood life, including perceptions of neighborhood inhabitants, satisfaction with their neighborhood, fear of crime, and neighborhood physical and social disorder, (2) objective measures of physical and social disorder, (3) levels of neighborhood crime, and (4) subjective perceptions of the level and quality of policing services. To assess the implementation and short-term impacts of Project ROAR, data were collected from various sources. First, four waves of face-to-face interviews were conducted with Parsons' Public Housing residents at approximately six-month intervals: April 1994, December 1994, May 1995, and November 1995 (Part 1, Public Housing Residents Survey Data). Information collected from interviews with the Parsons' residents focused on their involvement with Project ROAR, community block watches, and tenant councils. Residents commented on whether there had been any changes in the level of police presence, drug-related crimes, prostitution, or any other physical or social changes in their neighborhood since the inception of Project ROAR. Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the housing complex, the neighborhood, the Spokane Police Department, the number of police present in the neighborhood, and the level of police service. Residents were also asked if they had been the victim of any crimes and to rate their level of fear of crime in the complex during the day and night, pre- and post-Project ROAR. The gender and age of each survey participant was also recorded. The second source of data was a city-wide survey mailed to the residents of Spokane (Part 2, Spokane Citizens Survey Data). Information collected from the survey includes demographics on ethnicity, gender, age, highest level of education, present occupation, and family income. The city residents were also asked to assess the level of police service, the number of police present in their neighborhood, the helpfulness of neighbors, whether they felt safe alone in their neighborhood, and overall satisfaction with their neighborhood. Third, a block-level physical and social disorder inventory was taken in April 1994, October 1994, April 1994, and October 1995 (Part 3, Neighborhood Inventory Data). The sex, age, and behavior of the first ten people observed during the inventory period were recorded, as well as the number of people observed loitering. Other observations made included the number of panhandlers, prostitutes, open drug sales, and displays of public drunkenness. The number of residential and commercial properties, restaurants, bars, office buildings, empty lots, unboarded and boarded abandoned buildings, potholes, barriers (walls or fences), abandoned cars, and for-sale signs, along with the amount of graffiti on public and private properties and the amount of litter and broken glass observed in each neighborhood, completed the inventory data. Finally, crime reports were collected from the Spokane Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit (Part 4, Disaggregated Crime Data, and Part 5, Aggregated Crime Data). These data contain monthly counts of robberies and burglaries for the public housing neighborhood, a constructed controlled comparison neighborhood,

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 a process evaluation of the three residential substance abuse treatment programs in the state of Ohio. These programs include MonDay Community Correctional Institution (MonDay), Mohican Youth Center, and Noble Choices. MonDay is a locally operated, community-based correctional facility for felony offenders to which male and female offenders are sentenced in lieu of prison for a period not to exceed six months. MonDay's RSAT program began in October 1997, and a Therapeutic Community (TC) was fully implemented by January 1, 1998. Offenders identified as needing long-term residential treatment were assigned to MonDay's RSAT for six months. Mohican Youth Center (MYC) is an institutional-based TC and is operated by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Youth convicted of felonies and assessed as needing long-term residential substance abuse treatment are sent to MYC for the last six months of their sentence. Noble Choices is a TC for adult males within the Noble Correctional Institution, a medium security prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The specific research questions addressed in this study were: (1) What is the profile of offenders being served by the Ohio RSAT programs? (2) What is the nature of the services being delivered by the Ohio RSAT programs? (3) What are the intermediate outcomes of Ohio RSAT programs? (4) How are offenders performing under post-release supervision in terms of relapse and recidivism? and (5) What factors are associated with successful program completion and post-release recidivism and relapse? A one-group post-test design was used to conduct this process evaluation. Each program was studied as a separate entity. The study period for each program began at the date of first admission, which was January 1, 1998, for MonDay, March 3, 1998, for MYC, and October 18, 1998, for Noble Choices. The study period ended on March 31, 1999, for MYC and Noble Choices and on April 30, 1999, for MonDay. The sample consists of 466 individuals, including 90 from MonDay, 343 from MYC, and 33 from Noble Choices. Staff at each of the three sites collected intake, treatment, and termination data on their respective program clients using standardized forms developed by the University of Cincinnati. The intake form was used to collect basic demographic information on each offender along with information on past substance abuse, prior treatment experiences, and criminal history. The termination form collected data on type of termination (successful or unsuccessful) and criminal justice placement and residency upon termination. Each site also provided agency-specific assessment information on each offender. Offenders at MonDay were given the Level of Services Inventory (LSI), which measures the risk of recidivism, and the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems. Offenders at MYC were administered the Juvenile Automated Substance Abuse Evaluation (JASAE), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems, and the Youthful Offender Level of Services Inventory (YO-LSI). Offenders at Noble Choices were given the Prison Inmate Inventory (PII), which measures several risk factors. In addition, offenders at MonDay and MYC were given the Personal Drug Use Questionnaire (PDUQ), which measures motivation for treatment at intake and 90 days after intake, and offenders at MonDay also completed the PDUQ upon termination. Offenders at MonDay were also administered a Client Self-Rating Form, which measures levels of social and psychological functioning, at intake, 90 days after intake, and termination. Follow-up forms were sent to probation and parole officers to collect information on MYC and MonDay offenders' treatment and supervision activities during the period of supervision after release from the program. Follow-up data were collected on terminated cases from the date of release until August 30, 1999. Part 1, MonDay Data,

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 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

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.

This study sought (1) to set up a system to evaluate the operations and effectiveness of The Other Way (TOW) residential substance abuse treatment program at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa, and (2) to assist program staff in developing and implementing intake, discharge, and follow-up instruments and evaluation protocols to document inmate characteristics and changes over time related to substance use/abuse, mental health, social functioning, and criminal behavior and attitudes. Inmates are referred to this program if they have an identified need for residential-level substance abuse treatment and are within 12 months of release consideration. TOW is a voluntary, six-month long program that works with inmates to identify the causes of their addictive behaviors and encourage changes in unacceptable behaviors and criminal thinking. The sample for this study consists of adult male inmates at the Clarinda Correctional Facility between January 1998 and March 1999. The first point of data collection was the intake assessment. At intake, each subject completed an intake packet consisting of several instruments that measured variables relevant to TOW program goals. Each inmate was also given an Addiction Severity Index (ASI) interview by a counselor at intake. Upon discharge from the program, each subject completed a discharge packet, which contained instruments slightly different from those in the intake packet. Instruments were chosen for reliability and validity, ease of administration, potential for dual clinical and evaluation use, and whether they duplicated any existing efforts. Versions of the following instruments were included in both the intake and discharge packets: the Colorado Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire, Circumstances, Motivation, and Readiness (CMR) Scales for Substance Abuse Treatment, the Social Provisions Scale (SPS), the Self-Help Questionnaire, and the STEPS Questionnaire. A consumer satisfaction survey was also administered at the discharge interview. Variables obtained from answers to the ASI include gender, living situation, date of birth, race, religion, length of incarceration, medical status, education and employment history, sources of financial support, family/social relationships including abuse history, psychiatric status, drug and alcohol use including kinds of drugs used, length of use, age at first use, and frequency of use for each drug, personal problems caused by drug use, drug treatment history, legal history, and family history of drug, alcohol, and psychological problems. Intake assessment variables included are related to social attitudes, and include variables on life goals and the subjects' own views of their achievability, how subjects thought their friends viewed them, how wrong subjects thought certain illegal acts were, and criminal acts by the subjects' friends in the past six months. Discharge packet variables include the same variables on social attitudes as the intake packet as well as variables obtained from answers to the SPS relating to the amount of social support subjects felt they had, past involvement with self-help groups, and life attitudes related to drug/alcohol use.

This study was a process evaluation of Pennsylvania's two Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs in their first year of implementation. These programs were maintained through the joint management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operated the programs. Opened in early 1998 in two correctional facilities for men, each of these programs could serve up to 60 male technical parole violators (TPVs) with a history of substance abuse. Instead of the nine- to 36-month terms typical for parolees recommitted for violations, RSAT participants served six months in prison-based intensive therapeutic communities (TCs), followed by six months of aftercare in a DOC-sponsored Community Corrections Center (CCC), similar to a halfway house. Both programs took a cognitive-behavioral approach to drug treatment. This study focused on the prison-based component of the RSAT programs. It examined the extent to which components of RSAT treatment were in place and the integrity of program operations. Interviews for this study were conducted between February and December 1998. At intake, program staff interviewed RSAT participants (Part 1, Intake Data), and Vera Institute of Justice onsite researchers conducted participant interviews upon exit (Part 2, Exit Data). Through December 31, 1998, 160 intake interviews and 77 exit interviews with program graduates were administered.

In partnership with the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), this study a) collected prison administrative data to create person-level cohort-analysis files of inmates admitted to and released from Florida prisons between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2015, b) collected stock population data of inmates incarcerated on June 30, 2011, c) examined recidivism outcomes, d) examined the effects of long-term solitary confinement on inmate behavior and mental health, and e) conducted a survey of prison personnel from November 4, 2019 to January 10, 2020, in order to conduct an analysis to address the need in public policy decision-making for evidence on the impacts of restricted housing on inmates, prisons and personnel, and public safety overall.