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 overall goals of the process evaluation were to assess the participants' views on the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT), a Therapeutic Community program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, and to determine whether the women thought the program met their needs specifically based on gender. The specific goals of the study were: (1) to determine drop-out points along the continuum of the treatment model and to review the case files to discover any patterns in client participation and review demographic data in the program, and (2) to assess what current participants thought about the program and treatment model. For Part 1, Recent Graduate Data, data were secured from case files of women who had been discharged from the Therapeutic Community (Key Village) program in Baylor Women's Correctional Institute in 1999. This analysis was used to prepare the survey instrument used for the interviews given to the women currently participating in the program. For Part 2, Client Assessment Satisfaction Data, the current residents of the program were interviewed. During fall of 2000 and spring of 2001, a survey was developed to assess how the current participants viewed the Key Program. The questions were intended to gather information to assess the gender appropriateness of the program. A database was constructed to search for any consistencies or variables that would address the issue of gender appropriateness or lack of such in the operation of the program from the participants' point of view. During the interview period there were a total of 88 women in the Key Program. Of the 88 women, 76 agreed to participate in the study. For Part 1, the variables cover demographic data, criminal history information, medical information, prior drug treatment histories, and program success or failure. Part 2 variables cover demographic information, and questions dealing with prior drug use, the first four weeks of the program, the confrontation aspects of the program, sanctions and program rules, staff/participant interaction, program activities and responsibilities as opposed to the general population, readiness for change, support systems, children's visits and children as motivation, physical aspects of the program, mental health, the need for additional vocational and educational services, significant aspects and experiences from the program, and desired changes to the program.

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), the National Center on Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), and with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted a two-tiered, 33-month, exploratory mixed methods study of the policies, programs, and practices used nationwide to address the needs of incarcerated women with prior trauma and victimization experiences and prevent in-custody victimization, aiming to generate actionable information for policymakers, practitioners, and program developers. This is the first single, comprehensive study documenting the extent to which facilities implement trauma-informed and gender-responsive approaches to address women's victimization experiences, whether they offer victim services, the range of services offered, and the prevalence of trauma-informed practices in state-level women's correctional facilities. It establishes foundational knowledge for the field regarding the scope, structure, and composition of these approaches, including their trauma-informed components and use in women's correctional facilities.

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.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the initial efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of Seeking Safety (SS) treatment in a sample of incarcerated women with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Seeking Safety, a cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy treatment, is a psychosocial treatment for women with comorbid PTSD and SUD and, at the time this study was conducted, it was the treatment with the most efficacy data for this population. SS treatment appears to be a promising intervention for incarcerated women with PTSD and SUD because (1) the treatment targets many of the deficits found in this population that may interfere with their recovery and place these women at risk for reoffending (such as impulsiveness, anger dyscontrol, and maladaptive lifestyle activities), and (2) it teaches skills to manage these problematic behaviors. This study aimed to conduct an open feasibility trial of Seeking Safety treatment in a sample of six incarcerated women with SUD and PTSD and to conduct a randomized controlled pilot study to evaluate the initial efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of the proposed treatment as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared to a TAU control group in a sample of 22 incarcerated women with comorbid PTSD and SUD. The primary hypothesis was that, compared to the TAU condition, women in the SS treatment condition would have less severe drug and alcohol use as well as fewer PTSD symptoms and legal problems after intervention, and at six weeks and three months after release. The first six participants recruited for the study received SS group treatment as an adjunct to the treatment provided by the Discovery Program, the substance abuse treatment program in the minimum security arm of the Women's Facility of the Adult Correctional Institution in Providence, Rhode Island. The remaining participants were randomly assigned to either the control group (TAU) or to a group that received SS treatment as an adjunct to TAU. The treatment groups were conducted by clinicians who worked as substance abuse therapists in the Discovery Program and a clinical psychologist from Brown University. All SS therapists received training in delivering SS therapy from Dr. Lisa Najavits, who developed SS treatment. Assessments were conducted at pretreatment, post-treatment during incarceration, and three and six months postrelease for PTSD-related measures. Measures of severity of substance abuse and legal problems were taken at pretreatment, as well as at the six- and 12-week postrelease intervals. Measures were taken with a variety of clinical instruments, including the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) module on substance use, the Clinician Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale-I (CAPS-I), the Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ), the Helping Alliance Questionnaire-II (HAQ-II), the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the End-of-Treatment Questionnaire. Basic demographic data were also collected from administrative records. Variables include alcohol, drug, and legal composite scores at pretreatment and post-treatment, number of relapses, whether the woman returned to prison, whether the woman lied about substance abuse, use of particular substances one month prior to prison and during lifetime, PTSD indicators of frequency and intensity, total client satisfaction scores, patients' ratings of therapists and treatment, and trauma scales for crime, sexual abuse, and physical abuse. Demographic variables include age, ethnic background, education, first time in prison, the nature of the current conviction, and number of arrests with convictions.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management practices. The goal was to gather information on "what works for which women" with respect to the program characteristics most related to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs that appeared to be "state of the art" for incarcerated women (Part 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning, allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders, ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of management styles used for managing female offenders, security and other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents' views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders, which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women, how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women, such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate sanctions, and how decisions were made to use

This study aimed to further evaluate previous findings regarding drug use and criminal behaviors among the criminal population by investigating the effectiveness of two Colorado Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Communities (RSAT TC) for offenders. The first, the Crossroad to Freedom House Therapeutic Community at the Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC TC) was a prison-based program. The second was the community-based Peer I Therapeutic Community (Peer I). Two methodologies were used to gather data. Part 1, RSAT Outcome Data, contains quantitative data collected from five separate study groups of differing sample sizes that received differing levels of treatment, with a total of 778 cases. The groups were compared on five separate outcome variables: technical violation, new misdemeanor arrest, new felony arrest, return to prison, and overall supervision failure. To gather baseline information from participants, a researcher administered the intake packet in group format to participants within three weeks of admission to ACC TC. After completing the treatment programs, outcome data were collected for a two-year follow-up period for each participant. Part 2, Case Studies, consists of case studies of ten participants, two from each of the above five listed groups. One from each group had successful outcomes, and one did not. Successful outcomes were defined as participants who were still living in the community after 12 to 18 months without any new charges. Unsuccessful outcomes were defined as those participants who were returned to prison for technical violations or new charges and were eligible for study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Information for the case studies were gathered through interviews with both former prisoners and one of their significant others. Variables for Part 1 include demographic information, length of stay in both the ACC TC and Peer I, types of programs parolees were released to, and time period between leaving the Department of Corrections and any subsequent returns. Information was also gathered on the presence of psychological concerns as an adult, as well as in childhood. Part 2 consists of information regarding ACC TC and Peer I participants' post-treatment such as their employment status, financial well-being, significant relationships, relapse information and whether or not the interviewee has returned to the Department of Corrections since receiving treatment and being released.

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 study evaluated the Mental Illness-Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. MICA is a residential substance abuse treatment program that consists of three stages: (1) an 8- to 12-month residential therapeutic community stage, (2) an institutional aftercare stage, and (3) a community aftercare stage. This outcome study documented important aspects of program implementation and effectiveness. It included all 141 inmates admitted to MICA between October 1997 and March 2000. A control group comprised of 66 inmates who were too close to their mandatory release dates to participate in the program but who were otherwise eligible was also included. Data were gathered from Department of Corrections administrative records regarding admissions information, assessment results, institutional behavior, institutional placement and services after program completion or exit, and recidivism. MICA staff provided information on treatment progress, behavior, and mental health status. MICA outreach specialists provided three-month post-release data on community outcomes for MICA graduates. Parole agents provided three-month post-release data on parole compliance and recidivism for all study participants. Variables include assessment results, institutional services received, history of incarceration, urinalysis testing, changes in mental health status and program behavior throughout treatment, clinical test results, conduct reports, institutional placement and services after MICA, whether the individual had appropriate resources upon release to the community, parole status, recidivism, mental health and chemical use status after release, support services provided by MICA staff after release, and other support services received after release.

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.