This is a comprehensive meta-analysis of available research on the effects of intervention programs for adult offenders, which is based on 801 eligible controlled studies reported through 2014 identified by researchers. Variables describing the intervention, participating offender samples, research methods, and effects found on a range of outcome constructs were coded into a database for analysis. The major outcome categories examined were recidivism, substance use, employment, mental health, anger/hostility, and aggression/violence. Broad intervention approaches included those such as cognitive behavioral, structured group, counseling, and drug court programs.The meta-analysis seeks to examine outcomes of various types of interventions and identify the characteristics of programs and participants most closely associated with positive outcomes. It seeks to use the findings to construct and obtain feedback on effective practice guidelines within the adult correctional system.

The Fortune Society, a private not-for-profit organization located in New York City, provides a variety of services that are intended to support former prisoners in becoming stable and productive members of society. The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the extent to which receiving supportive services at the Fortune Society improved clients' prospects for law abiding behavior. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which receipt of these services reduced recidivism and homelessness following release. The research team adopted a quasi-experimental design that compared recidivism outcomes for persons enrolled at Fortune (clients) to persons released from New York State prisons and returning to New York City and, separately, inmates released from the New York City jails, none of whom went to Fortune (non-clients). All -- clients and non-clients alike -- were released after January 1, 2000, and before November 3, 2005 (for state prisoners), and March 3, 2005 (for city jail prisoners). Information about all prisoners released during these time frames was obtained from the New York State Department of Correctional Services for state prisoners and from the New York City Department of Correction for city prisoners. The research team also obtained records from the Fortune Society for its clients and arrest and conviction information for all released prisoners from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' criminal history repository. These records were matched and merged, producing a 72,408 case dataset on 57,349 released state prisoners (Part 1) and a 68,614 case dataset on 64,049 city jail prisoners (Part 2). The research team obtained data from the Fortune Society for 15,685 persons formally registered as clients between 1989 and 2006 (Part 3) and data on 416,943 activities provided to clients at the Fortune Society between September 1999 and March 2006 (Part 4). Additionally, the research team obtained 97,665 records from the New York City Department of Homeless Services of all persons who sought shelter or other homeless services during the period from January 2000 to July 2006 (Part 5). Part 6 contains 96,009 cases and catalogs matches between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier. The New York State Prisons Releases Data (Part 1) contain a total of 124 variables on released prison inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, geographic variables, and service variables. The New York City Jails Releases Data (Part 2) contain a total of 92 variables on released jail inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, and geographic variables. The Fortune Society Client Data (Part 3) contain 44 variables including demographic, criminal history, needs/issues, and other variables. The Fortune Society Client Activity Data (Part 4) contain seven variables including two identifiers, end date, Fortune service unit, duration in hours, activity type, and activity. The Homelessness Events Data (Part 5) contain four variables including two identifiers, change in homeless status, and date of change. The New York State Criminal Record/Fortune Society Client Match Data (Part 6) contain four variables including three identifiers and a variable that indicates the type of match between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier.

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components: 1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health. 2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

This study was an outcome evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the Barnstable House of Corrections in Massachusetts. The study is based on the 188 inmates referred to the RSAT program at Barnstable between January 1, 1999, and June 6, 2001. Data on participants' criminal histories were gathered from the Criminal History Systems Board through March 2002. Data on offender age, entry, and discharge dates were supplied by the Barnstable County House of Corrections. Data from offender scores on psychological inventories and offender outcomes in the RSAT program were supplied by AdCare Criminal Justice Services.

This study evaluated the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grant program enacted in 1994. The program provided grants to states to be used to increase the capacity of state correctional systems to confine serious and violent offenders. This national evaluation addressed four broad areas: (1) How had the federal government implemented the law? How much money had been made available and what were the criteria for disbursement? (2) How had the states reacted legislatively to the law? Did states adopt truth-in-sentencing or statutes having equivalent effect? (3) How had the state VOI/TIS money been spent and for what? How much did it increased prison capacities? (4) Did the law increase the number of admissions, length of sentences, and terms served for violent offenders? In addition to these four major areas, the study looked at related areas of interest, such as the impact of VOI/TIS and other "get tough" legislation on prosecutorial and judicial attitudes, policies, and practices. It also examined state spending on corrections, particularly for construction. The researchers collaborated with the American Correctional Association (ACA), the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct special surveys among state correctional officials, prosecutors, and judges. The ACA surveyed state departments of correction in the summer of 1998. States were asked to indicate the extent of changes in a number of prison operations and activities since 1996, when VOI/TIS funds became available. In the summer of 1999 the APRI surveyed prosecutors nationwide to ascertain their perceptions of the effects of "get tough" legislation (including TIS) on a number of dimensions. In the fall of 1999, the JMI surveyed judges nationwide on their impressions of the effectiveness of several "get tough" measures in their states, including VOI/TIS. In Part 1, American Correctional Association Survey Data, state correction departments were questioned on the amount of VOI/TIS funds spent by their state since 1996, number of beds added using VOI/TIS funds and in what types of facilities, how VOI/TIS funds were used to increase number of beds, average prison sentences in 1993 and 1998 for different types of offenses, average time actually served in 1993 and 1998 for those offenses, the effects of VOI/TIS on prison and jail admissions for different types of offenders, and its effects on the composition of the prison population, prison inmate activities and programs, prison staffing, and prison operations. In Part 2, American Prosecutors Research Institute Survey Data, prosecutors were questioned about what "get tough" policies their states had enacted, the efficacy of "get tough" policies in achieving their goals, whether these policies had unanticipated or negative consequences, expected results of these policies, the percentage of cases to which these policies applied, the extent to which these policies had helped accomplish their office's goals, the effects of "get tough" policies on budget and resources, sentences and time actually served, and the criminal justice process, the size of their jurisdiction, and the number of staff in their office. In Part 3, Justice Management Institute Survey Data, judges were questioned about whether their state had enacted "get tough" policies in the past ten years, what kinds of policies were adopted, their effect on the efficiency of case processing, the formal positions of the Judicial Council and Judges Association on the policies, whether the respondent or other judges had input into the policies, how likely "get tough" policies were to achieve certain goals, what results the respondent expected from the policies, the impact of the policies on the criminal justice process, years experience on the bench, the percentage of their caseload that involved criminal cases, whether they handled civil, family law/domestic relations, or

As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Congress provided funding for the development of substance abuse treatment programs in state and local correctional facilities with the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program. To be eligible for this funding, programs were required to last between six and 12 months, be provided in residential treatment facilities set apart from the general correctional population, be directed at the inmate's substance abuse problems, and be intended to develop the inmate's cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills to address substance abuse and related problems. The Illinois Youth Center (IYC) in St. Charles started an RSAT program on September 30, 1999. The primary emphasis of this process evaluation was to describe why and how the St. Charles RSAT program was designed, implemented, and operated. To a lesser degree, attention was also directed toward examining the effects of program participation on offender pre-release behavior. This was considered to be a primary indicator of program impact. This project sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Did the program fit within the institutional environment? (2) Was the program operating as a therapeutic community? (3) Were the appropriate offenders selected for program participation? and (4) Were any short-term impacts evident within the youth? This study followed a process evaluation design with a focus on determining how a product or outcome was produced, rather than on assessing the product or outcome itself. Information in this data collection was collected from youth participants and youth files. Subjects consisted of the 44 youths who began the RSAT program in 1999 (the treatment group), as well as a matched sample of non-program participants (the comparison group). The comparison group was used to contrast institutional behavior of youths not in the treatment program and to establish a non-treatment cohort for an expected follow-up impact study. Part 1 contains data from two surveys of program youth only, and Parts 2-4 contained data on both program youth and the comparison group. Part 2 data were gathered from a review of the youths' master files at the correctional facility. Part 3 data were obtained from behavior action tickets (BATs), which were an institution-wide semi-formal mechanism to recognize positive and negative youth behavior. Part 4 data were collected from institutional disciplinary reports (IDRs). Part 1 surveyed youth about what they hoped to achieve in the RSAT program, whether they thought the program would help them, how well they understood the program, how they assessed their own substance abuse problems, what they liked and disliked about the program, their opinions about program staff, and their recommendations for changing the program. Demographic variables in Part 2 include age, race, and education level. Other variables record reading test scores, math test scores, IQ scores, location of parents, number of siblings, drug use and frequency, criminal history, types of prior substance abuse treatments, family history of drug use, suicidal ideations, and personality test scores. Part 3 contains monthly counts of positive and negative behavior action tickets. Part 4 contains information about the number and types of guilty institutional disciplinary reports, the severity of the offenses, and the number and types of punishments received.

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 goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".

The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program, created by Title III (Subtitle U of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), was designed by Congress to implement residential substance abuse programs providing individual and group treatment for inmates in residential facilities operated by state and local correctional agencies. Under the Corrections Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice, state and local correctional agencies received funds to develop or enhance existing programs that: (1) lasted between six and 12 months, (2) provided residential treatment facilities set apart from the general correctional population, (3) were directed at the substance abuse problems of the inmate, (4) were intended to develop the inmate's cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills in order to treat related problems as well as the substance abuse, and (5) continued to require urinalysis and/or other proven reliable forms of drug and alcohol testing of individuals assigned to treatment programs during and after release from residential custody. The National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI) entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Justice wherein NDRI would evaluate the extent to which the goals of the RSAT program were being accomplished and the problems that were encountered by the participating states. The methods of this national evaluation were: (1) an initial state survey to ascertain the RSAT programs and program directors in each of the 50 states plus five territories and the District of Columbia and to collect basic information on the aggregate impact of the RSAT-funded programs in each state or territory (Part 1, State Data), (2) a follow-up state survey to collect more detailed information on the aggregate impact of the RSAT-funded programs in each state (Part 1, State Data), and (3) an initial program survey to describe the separate RSAT programs as they came on line and to assess whether a few of the programs might serve as model programs which could undergo subsequent intensive evaluation (Part 2, Program Data). The sampling method used was a census of all the existing RSAT-funded programs and all of the state RSAT officials. Part 1 variables include the amount of RSAT funds received by the state in fiscal years 1996 to 1998, amounts from other sources of funding, and amount spent on salaries, training, drug tests, other supplies, and facilities, as well as number of residents, number of staff, reasons why funding was delayed, RSAT award date, and RSAT end date. Part 2 variables include the number of clients in the program, number of beds available, number of staff by gender, race, age, education, profession, and years of experience, admission inclusion criteria, reporting procedures, treatment type and duration, type of drug testing and number of tests, annual budget, sources of funding, and cost per capita.