Criminal Justice Reference: 189249

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs at New Jersey Correctional Facilities: Final Report Robert J. McCormack 189249

Author(s): Document No.:

Date Received:
Award Number:

July 23, 2001
99-RT-VX-K023

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.-.

I

i Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
I

iI

1 Process Evaluation of the

..:

(RSAT) Programs
at New Jersey Correctional Facilities
PROPERTY OF Natk ii Criminal Justice Referents Service (NCJRS)
Box C 00

ACCEPTED AS FINAL REPORT
Approved BY:
Date:
L
%

Rock !e, NID 20849-6008

.&-- --

Final Report

i
I i I f
I

Donald T. DiFrancesco, Acting Governor

I

State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Susan Maurer, Acting Commissioner Prepared by The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey March 2001

I
i
I

_-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

July 3,200 1

Ms. Laurie Bright, Grant Manager National Institute of Justice Office of Research and Evaluation 810 7thSt., NW Washington, D.C. 2053 1 Dear Ms. Bright: I have enclosed an original and two copies of the Final Project Report - “Process Evaluation of the RSAT Programs at the New Jersey Correctional Facilities” - NIJ Grant #1999-RT-VX-K023. Robert J. McCormack, Ph.D., The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey, served as one of the CoPrincipal Investigators and is the author of this report. I regret to inform you that the report contains information that the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) can not support. Throughout its entirety, the report reflects little understanding and insight into a correction-based treatment environment. Although the NJDOC sought a meeting with the Co-Principal Investigator/author to discuss our concerns, Dr. McCormack was unwilling to meet with us and insisted that his report stand as initially written. A copy of our Department’s correspondence on this issue is attached; D .McCormack responded to us in our follow-up e-mail and phone call to him. r Consequently, in a separate document, the New Jersey Department of Corrections is conveying information to clarify and to correct the project’s final report. A copy is enclosed for your review.
As you may recall, the NJDOC pursued grant funds from NIJ for this process evaluation and a companion outcome evaluation of our RSAT programs. Dr. McCormack and Dr. Mario Papparozzi were to serve as the Co-Principal Investigators. The NJDOC expected to rely heavily on the expertise and experience of Dr. Papparozzi in the conduct of this research. In the midst of the process evaluation, however, Dr. Papparozzi left his position with The Criminal Justice Center, The College of New Jersey, to assume a new position as Chairman of the New Jersey State Parole Board. He informed us that the demands of this new job would preclude his continued involvement in the process evaluation and prompted him to withdraw entirely from the outcome evaluation.

0

Dr. Papparozzi’s departure from these projects left a significant void in the critical experience and expertise necessary to conduct this research adequately. As a result, the NJDOC proposed to NIJ that Dr. McCormack conclude the process evaluation and that the outcome evaluation be terminated prematurely.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

0

Laurie Bright June 15,2001 Page 2 NIJ endorsed this proposal. Unfortunately, the process evaluation report reflects the aforementioned void. It is our hope that our accompanying document will serve to mitigate this shortfall. Please contact Ms.Therese Matthews, Grants Manager, at (609) 984-0203 or me directly at (609) 292-9974 if you have any questions or require additional information. The New Jersey Department of Corrections appreciates the support of the National Institute of Justice in our efforts to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of OUT RSAT programs. In addition, we appreciate your understanding in these unusual and difficult circumstances. Very truly yours,

Office of Community and Drug Programs

0

Enclosures C: Susan Maurer, Acting Commissioner Jeffrey Burns, Assistant Commissioner Therese Matthews, Grants Manager

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

APOLOGIA
An Argument in support of the New Jersey Department of Corrections 1998 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment model and its Research Methodology

J. Ted Levay, Supervisor and T. M. Morawski, Administrative Analyst Offices of Community and Drug Programs

June 29,2001

N m Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PAGE ONE ARGUMENT .Process Evaluation of the RSAT Programs at the New Jersey Correctional Facilities is prepared by The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey with Robert J. McCormack as its principal author. The Process Evaluation fails to remain focused on the historical period of 1998, retrieve information concerning the daily operational activity and compare it to the policy governing the process. The misinterpretation of the “estimates of completion” critically reduced the database’s potential. The author does not recognize continuum care program components and the interaction of their activities. These confusions mislead the reader by drawing unfounded conclusions or creating errors logic. The New Jersey Department of Corrections cites the following examples: Part I Correctional Background and Literature Review Author’s Statements: “In order to deal with the burgeoning drug dependent inmate population in the state, the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), in the late 198Os, began to develop experimental “therapeutic community” (TC) programs in their juvenile correctional facilities. The New Jersey Therapeutic Community treatment programs for adult residential substance abusers commenced in March of 1990 with the creation of the Southern State PIER Program, and the culminated with the creation of the largest of the TC Programs at South Woods in May of 1997.“ (Page 2) DOC’s Response: The statements are historically inaccurate, but more importantly the author misidentifies an adult facility as a juvenile facility, which is under a separate authorities. Part I Correctional Background and Literature Review Author’s Statement: “While making great strides in terms of program implementation, the Department apparently did not anticipate the eventual need for program evaluation”. (Page 2) DOC’s Response: This significant statement is misleading. Its placement in the first section of the report sets the tone for the remainder of the report. In fact, the Office of Drug Program Operations established a database in 1989 for tracking inmate and parolee movements throughout the continuum of care. From this database routine program evaluations were generated as required grant products for continued funding. The Semi-Annual and Annual program evaluations were forwarded to the New Jersey Attorney Generals Office, our state monitoring and channel for federal funding. Continuation of funding to this date is evidence that the program evaluations with associated data were acceptable. Additionally, the Department’s database yielded extensive yearly Inmate Profiles, which were forwarded for inclusion in federal databases. Author’s Statement continues “As a result, a tracking system to monitor inmate progress [or lack of it] through the TCs and the newly added continuum of care components was never developed. This tracking void makes it virtually impossible to determine the reasons for individual inmate success or failure in a particular program, the relative effectiveness of the TC programs, or the impact of the various treatment components on TC participants.“ (Page 2) DOC’S Response: If this statement refers to inmate clinical progress tracking, program impact on the inmates success or failure, and measurement of program effectiveness, then the data is available for review by the author.

0

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PAGE TWO ARGUMENT

0

0

Regarding clinical progress, records are maintained in TC manual record files and correctional facility Classification departments on site or at NJDOC Central Office. Although an integrated record tracking system containing all information on a given inmate is not currently in place, access to electronic classification records were made available to the researchers from a DOC office in close proximity to The College’s office. Regarding the measuring of program components and their effectiveness, it was understood that TCNJ researchers were to evaluate as noted. A key method of assessing correctional treatment programs is through the use of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), an evaluation tool developed by Drs. Paul Gendreau and Don Adams.” (McCormack, Final ReBort, pg. 4 ) Arrangements were made 5. for the Co-Principal Investigators to conduct the CPAI at the correctional-based TCs and Residential Community ReIease Agreement Programs, but the evaluations were not conducted.
“

PART I1 HISTORY AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAMS RSAT Program Structure and Operations Classification and Assignment CRAF Intake Unit Author’s Statement: “CFUF holds four classification hearings each week, and assigns inmates to programs and institutions throughout the state based on inmate need and available bed space.“ (Page 16)
DOS’s? Response: This statement introduces the author’s misunderstanding of DOC’S mission, the classification process, and the fundamental understanding of the assessment process. It is necessary to understand the agency-culture, recognize competition between programs for inmates who are Full Minimum or FM eligible, and understand the processing of these inmates throughout the system.

There is a distinction in the authority and the mission between the Inter-Institutional Classification Committee, Institutional Classification Committee, and the Residential Community Release Agreement Programs, Assessment and Treatment Centers. 0 The primary mission of Department of Corrections in practice is “public safety, security of the facility, staff, and inmates, and maintaining order (discipline). Only after security concerns are addressed are “Inmate needs” considered. 0 The Inter-institutional Classification Committee is an assembly of representatives from different correctional facilities that are responsible for determining the correctional facility to which an inmate is assigned and approve requests for transfer from one correctional facility to another. (New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 1OA) They meet at Central Reception and Assignment Facility four times weekly. 0 When the inmate resides at the assigned parent correctional facility, that Institutional Classification Committee or Residential Community Release Agreement Program -- Assessment and Treatment Center assigns the inmate to a treatment programs. They use the results of the full A.S.I. and extensive interviews and a battery of assessment instruments to assess client for program matching, such as therapeutic communities or community release programs.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

-

>

~

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PAGE THREE ARGUMENT @Accurately stated, CRAF, the intake unit holds four classification committee meetings each week, and assigns inmates to correctional facilities throughout the state based upon the inmate’s age, size, offense, sentence, previous incarcerations, mental status, security needs and available bed space, followed by treatment needs (NJDOC Administrative Code, Classification).

PART I1 HISTORY AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAM RSAT Program Structure and Operations Classification and Assignment County Jail Confinement Author’s Statement: “Clearly, the program is not reaching a significant number of the approximately 3,000 state inmates confined in county jail facilities. Since this population includes many young, non-violent, substance-addicted offenders, who without treatment will predictably re-offend upon release, the program should be expanded to evaluate and provide treatment programs for these inmates.” (Page 17)
DOC’S Response: In New Jersey, a jail is a county institution that primarily confines individuals awaiting trial or adults serving short sentences, generally one year or less. A jail may be under the control of the sheriff or the board of chosen freeholders. In optional charter counties, the jail may be under the control of the county executive or county manager. County government is responsible for the cost of operating the jails. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to establish minimum standards for the care, treatment, government and discipline of inmates in county jails (N.J.S.A. 30: 1B-10). The only remedial action that may be taken by the Commissioner is he may order a phased restriction of admission of new state-sentenced inmates into that facility. (N.J.S.A. 30:8-57). The county jails are inspected on a regular basis to monitor compliance with the Department’s minimum standards. In the county jail, services vary considerably from county to county. As noted, the Department has the authority to inspect and observe if minimum standards are maintained. In 1982, the County Correctional Policy Act was passed by the New Jersey Legislature for the purpose of providing State grants to participating counties under the county assistance program in exchange for the placement of certain State prisoners in medium and minimum-securityjails. The program is funded through bond monies. NJDOC allocates these funds to counties to house state-sentenced inmates in their jails, but it is at the discretion of the counties to hold state-sentenced inmates. Several counties do not want to house statesentenced inmates and in practice do not house them. In conclusion, Department of Corrections can write minimum standards and inspect for compliance, but has little enforcement authority. County government operates the county jails. Also, to provide services to county jails and then to evaluate those programs was outside of the scope and goals of the process or outcome evaluation. The evaluation was concerned with prison-based RSAT funded slots. In state terminology, youth and adult complex correctional facilities with established TCs. Unrecognized by the author, NJDOC pro-actively funds, participates in the Drug Court Initiative Steering Committee, and negotiates the quality and quantity of services for the five specialized Drug Courts, in the most crime-burdened vicinages. The Drug Courts offer intensive six-month residential substance use disorder treatment with aftercare as an alternative to incarceration. Plans to expand to the remaining ten vicinages are currently under review by the State Legislature.

a

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunify Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

’

PAGE FOUR ARGUMENT

For many years, NJ has offered the Intensive Supervision Program, a nationally recognized probation program supported by the Administrative Office of the Courts. A panel of three judges review individuals, similarly described by Dr. McCormack, for release to intensive probation supervision after serving some time incarcerated.

Part I1 HISTORY AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAMS RSAT Program Structure and Operations Classification and Assignment Administration of the Addiction Severity Index (A.S.I.) Author’s Statement: “The Policy directive (DOC Policy Paper 4A 1.2) clearly intends that all inmates will be subject to an AS1 evaluation”. (Page 18) DOC’s Response: Again, this is from an Administrative Policy Manual, an internal document, which is used to guide the facility in daily operations, but is not a rule-made Department Policy. Hence does not carry the weight of Commissioner review or approval. Background of AS1 Form Author’s Statement’s: “The Addiction Severity Index currently utilized by the DOC is an abbreviated version of one developed by the University of Pennsylvania‘s Veterans Administration Center for Studies of Addiction in 1980 (see appendix B). (Page 18) ... While indicating that the longer AS1 has been used for the assessment of other groups of subjects, the Guide cautions about the reliability and validity of the administration of the instrument under different circumstances. (Page 19) ... The AS1 form currently being used by NJDOC is not the same as the one developed by the University of Pennsylvania. It is an amended and abbreviated version of the original, referred to as the “short” form and deals almost exclusively with inmates’ substance abuse problems. The short form records information with regard to inmate personal data, arrest and conviction history, and substance abuse and treatment history. Additionally, it requires the interviewer to intuitively rate the severity of the addiction. See Illustration #1, following pages) By comparison, it should be noted that the short form, which is not scorable, is less obiective than the long one, and thus scientifically less effective in quantifjing the severity of addiction, or for making assimments to the various drug treatment promams available.” (Page 20) DOC’s Response: The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 18 (2000) 349 - 358 article on Effectiveness of Screening Instruments in Detecting Substance Use Disorders among Prisoners states that this study examines the effectiveness of several screening instruments in detecting substance use disorders among prison inmates. A sample of 400 male inmates were administered eight different substance abuse screening instruments and the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM - IV (SCID - I) Version 2.0 Substance Abuse V, Disorders module. The latter was used as a diagnostic criterion measure to determine the presence of substance use disorders. Based on the positive predictive value, sensitivity, and overall accuracy, ... the Alcohol Dependence Scale/Addiction Seventy Index - Drug Use section was found to be one of the most effective in identifying substance abuse and dependence disorders. In layman’s terms, the short form can be used for the prison populating and is considered an effective instrument.

e

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I

PAGE FIVE ARGUMENT

e

Furthermore, the AS1 author reviewed and modified the short form (the Alcohol Dependency Scale/Addiction Severity Index - Drug Use section) as a screening tool for NJDOC inmate population by adding two questions. The author notes in his 5thEdition, while individual items should not be removed from the ASI, items can easily be added to each section, to better reflect the client population and the needs of the facility. (McLellan, 1992) If the author in his Final Report searched the Literature more diligently, a great deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided. The Department intended the short form to be used as a screening instrument to identify inmates who would later receive more extensive assessment at a TC. It was not used for “quantifying the severity of the addiction, or for making assignments to the various drug treatment programs”. The AS1 was not designed for broad-based use.. . it can and should be used in conjunction with other instruments that, collectively, provide a complete and accurate picture of the client. (McLellan, 1992) Department of Corrections would follow with subsequent assessments to support the veracity of the process to identify addicted inmates, their addiction severity, and their assignment to a suitable treatment program. Upon arrival to a correctional facility from C.R.A.F., the inmate is called to the TC for an extensive personal interview. The classification file would be reviewed prior to the interview and while at the TC the sevensection AS1 (Long Form) would be administered. Acceptance into or rejection from the TC program would be made during a 30-day Orientation at the TC, not at Reception and the recommendation reviewed and confirmed by the Institutional Classification Committee. The author neglected to mention in his Final Report the Department’s use of the long AS1 form to determine appropriate level of treatment and the TC’s participation in evaluating the candidate’s suitability for treatment. We further support the use of AS1 on prison population, by referring you to PAGE SIX, The original rationale for the use of the ASI, coupled with the majority of states use of the AS1 for their Drug Courts, 43% (Peyton, 200 1) and state correctional facilities. NJDOC and its contacted TC agency used the A.S.I. Severity Ratings to assist clinicians in referrawtreatment planning. Traditionally, the Composite Scores are used for research purposes and are the mathematicallyweighted numbers used to measure change over time. Although we did not use the Composite Scores at screening or assessment, that did not exclude the author or his assistants from calculating the Composite Scores from existing screens. Organization of the NJ DOC AS1 Team Author’s Statement: “During an interview with the Department’s, training officer it was indicated that perhaps there was one other full time evaluator during that period” (1998). (Page 20)
DOC’S Response: This statement is inaccurate because it applies to 1990 (DOC’S AS1 Trainer). In 1998, DOC had two full-time evaluators fiom the Office of Drug Program Operations and trained rotating teams of evaluators from the correctional facilities, which afforded a total of five screeners per week.

AS1 Reliability Author’s Statement: “After observing the AS1 administration, probably the most serious concern on the part of the researchers was the reliability of the instrument to objectively assess the levels of substance abuse

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.

PAGE SIX ARGUMENT

among inmates. Given the lack of background information on the inmate being evaluated as indicated above, the evaluators rely exclusively on their ability to assess the veracity of the answers of the interviewee during a ten-minute interview.” .. . “More appropriate and objective instruments specifically created for screening correctional inmates for drug abuse have been developed over the past several years. The Texas Christian University Drug Screen” is suggested. (Page 23)
DOC’S Response: Space considerations rendered it impractical for all screeners to review folders during the short stay at Reception. The A.S.I.’s rates high on reliability when used as a clinical instrument for referral and treatment planning. (A.S.I. 5th Edition) The Department used the instrument in this manner. A P&D. in Psychology, the AS1 Supervisor, reviewed the inmate folders prior to and then reconciled the AS1 ratings after its administration. As previously stated, a thorough review of background information was conducted when the inmate was administered the long form AS1 at the TC interview, The Texas Christian University Drug Screen is not validated at this point. This is borne out by the author’s own statement (McCormack, p.50).

@

The original rationale for the Department’s use of the Addiction Severity Index: 0 The encouragement from U.S. Department of Justice technical advisors 0 The most widely used of the addiction assessment tools in the field, with high acceptance throughout the U.S. and fifteen other countries 0 It has strong scientific reliability and validity, confirmed in studies published in leading journals 0 Designed to document lifetime druglalcohol use 0 Designed to identify cause and effect in the lifestyle 0 The encouragement of the NJ Attorney’s Generals Office, Division of Criminal Justice 0 New Jersey’s Single State Agency, Department of Health and Senior Services used the instrument

Estimates of Program Completions Author’s Statement: “Discussions with the Department’s training officer and RSAT historian revealed that only about 1,200 of the 6,000 inmates who have been assigned to TCs since 1990 have completed the program. Roughly 40% are given “unfavorable terminations,” 40% leave for treatment, parole or other administrative reasons, and approximately 20% complete the program.” (Page 24) DOC’S Response: Again the author misinterprets, lacking a full understanding of the continuum of care components and the linkage between program components. We would say: 0 40% are identified as “unfavorable terminations” (which is the national average) 0 40% leave for treatment, parole, or other administrative reasons; this category represents those who moved through the continuum of care, and received further treatment or specialized supervision. This is an important objective for successfully transitioning offenders into the community. 0 20% are identified as “program completions”. Hence, we believe that 40% were “unfavorably terminated” and 20% complete the program and 40% would need further analysis to determine what occurred. The analysis was not done.

0

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

*

I

*

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PAGE SEVEN ARGUMENT

The Role of the Case Manager Author’s Statements: .. . the case Manager’s role was to provide DOC oversight and supervision of the TCs being operated by CMS (and other service providers), to assure that it was fulfilling its contractual treatment obligations.” “Despite significant efforts, the researchers could find no DOC person with the designation “case manager,” or anyone filling that role as defined in the DOC’s Treatment Policy memorandum. Some of the duties seem to be carried out by a variety of individuals: at the beginning of the continuum of care process by AS1 technicians; in mid-process by counselors at the TCs; and at the end by parole officers. There appears to be no one group that has responsibility for developing, implementing and monitoring an inmate’s treatment plan from classification through release from parole, or for bridging the “oversight” gap that exists between the DOC and CMS once the inmate is placed in CMS custody. Given the critical nature of the case manager’s role in the continuum of care process, and the breadth of services they are required to provide to TC clients, it would seem that a large number of Case Managers should be in place to shoulder the case load of some 1200 or so inmates currently in therapeutic communities.” (Page 26)
“

DOC’s Response: The focus of the evaluation is 1998. In that year, NJDOC provided significant oversight, supervision, communication and technical assistance with CMS through: a Quarterly meetings with correctional facility administrators and staff, who housed TC programs a Weekly contact with Correctional Management Services, drug program administrator a Monthly meetings with CMS TC program supervisors a Visits to TC programs by NJDOC case managers and the Supervisor of the Office a Quarterly meetings with IPDP officers, the specialized parole officers a The Office provided, coordinated, and financed training for CMS staff a Provided technical assistance for the development of TC program manuals During 1998, Project Reform (Stop the Revolving Door) funded by the Governor’s Office facilitated a staff of Case manager Supervisor, two regional caseworkers assigned to monitor and develop treatment plans, a State Parole Board Counselor and two Data Machine Operators. The current staffing pattern and system is different from the 1998. The system is connected by program and agency interfaces. Our oversight is accomplished by program monitoring to assure integrity of the continuum of care. Traditional casework is replaced with system oversight. PART I1 HISTORY AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAMS RSAT Program Structure and Operations Treatment Qualitative Analysis of Treatment Facilities, The Therapeutic Communities Author’s Statement: ... However, a number of issues related to access to data (which CMS believed to be confidential) were never satisfactorily resolved between the researchers, the DOC, and CMS before the
“

Nao Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

--

*

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.

PAGE EIGHT ARGUMENT

grants were terminated. Therefore, information vital for an effective evaluation, e.g., the CMS contract with DOC, the inmate’s records during TC participation, inmate and staff turnover rates, etc., never became available.” (Page 32) DOC’s Response: We disagree with the above statement. Some of the information was provided, while other requested information was questioned as to how it related to the research questions. DOC requested further clarification as to the scope of the project and the relevancy of the information requested to the project scope. The author was not responsive. PART 111 DATA A N A L Y S I S AND CPAI ADMINISTRATION Administration of the CPAI Author’s Statement: The last paragraph beginning “Research Team #2 ...it was learned that the project director had hired the Center for Therapeutic Research (the owners of the SEEQ materials) to train DOC personnel to conduct an independent study of the therapeutic communities at the same time the researchers were engaged in the NIJ evaluation.“ (Page 46) DOC’s Response: The author misunderstood the Department’s “independent study”. The research evaluation conducted by the author examined the inmates participating in the Department’s TC programs during the calendar year of 1998. Since 1998 the TC programs have undergone significant change under the leadership of Diane M. Zompa, Ph.D., Director of our Department’s Offices of Community and Drug Programs. As part of that change the Department undertook a Quality Assurance Initiative to identify Therapeutic Community weaknesses and to develop strategies to address those weaknesses. Development of an Alternative Methodology Dr. McCormack’s proposed a sample change to include offenders who were assessed for treatment after September 1, 2000. He informed this Department that additional time would be necessary to build a sufficient sample size of 500 and suggested that we request an extension of the outcome evaluation. The Department does not support this request for a grant extension and questions whether NU would support a significant change in the original research design. (Page 47)

e

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

e

-

- - u

m %

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bibliography
Babbie, Earl 1995. The Practice o Social Research. Seventh Edition: Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. f McCormack, Robert. 2001. “Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs at New Jersey Correctional Facilities, Final Report”, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, March 2001. McLellan, A.T. et al. eds. 1985.Addiction Severity Index: A Guide to Training and Supervising ASI Interviews Based on the Past Ten Years, 5th Edition, Veteran’s Administration Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, PA.. New Jersey Statute Annotated 30: 1B-10. New Jersey Statute Annotated 30: 8-16.3. New Jersey Statute Annotated 30: 8-57. New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 1OA, Chapter 1, Administration, Organization and Management and Chapter 9, Classijkation Process 2001.

e

New Jersey, County and Municipal Government, Study Commission, A Legislative Agency Corrections Policy, May 1989. New Jersey, Department of Corrections, Chapter 3 1, Manual o Standards f o r New Jersey Adult County f Correctional Facilities, August 2000. Peters, Roger H., et al. 2000. “Effectiveness of Screening Instruments in Detecting Substance Use Disorders among Prisoners” Journal o Substance Abuse Treatment Volume 18, Number 4 (June): 349 - 358. f Knight, K., Texas Christian University. 2001. Telephone call February 16,2001. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts, Report on the 1999 National Drug Court Treatment Survey. May 2001. Prepared by Peyton, Elizabeth A., Gossweiler, Robert, The College of William and Mary for National Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities, Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Washington, D.C.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

(RSAT) Programs
at New Jersey Correctional Facilities

Final Report

Donald T. DiFrancesco, Acting Governor

State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Susan Maurer, Acting Commissioner

a

Prepared by The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey March 2001

I

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments
New Jersey Department of Corrections Diane Zompa, Project Director Terry Morawski, Project Liaison Therese Matthews, Grants Manager National Institute of Justice Laurie Bright, Project Manager The Criminal Justice Center at The College of New Jersey Robert J. McCormack, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator Mario Paparozzi, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator
Laura Parisi, Research Associate Brad Buchholtz, Research Assistant Lisa Marotta, Research Assistant Jo Prosperi, Research Assistant Helen Kull, Secretary

Principal Author Robert J. McCormack, Ph.D.

This report was prepared under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, and with the assistance of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, by researchers at The Criminal Justice Center at The College of New Jersey PO Box 771 8, Ewing, NJ 08628 609/771-2727 [email protected]

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ILLUSTRATIONS PART I: CORRECTIONS BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Relationship Between Drugs And Crime History And Philosophy of Correctional Drug Abuse Treatment Effectiveness Of Treatment Therapeutic Community Programs (TO)

11

..

iv
1
3 5 7 10

PART 11: HISTORY AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAM
RSAT Program Inception RSAT Program Structure And Operations
CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT Central Reception Assignment Facility (CRAF) CRAF Intake Unit County Jail Confinement CRAF Reception Unit Administration of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) Background of AS1 Form Organization of the NJ DOC AS1 Team T h e AS1 Training Program Suggested Changes in AS1 Administration AS1 Reliability Estimates of Program Completion T h e Role of the Case Manager TREATMENT Correctional Medical Services’ Therapeutic Communities Qualitative Analysis of Treatment Facilities: T h e Therapeutic Communities Pre-Release Inmate Assessment Centers

12
14 15
15 15 16 16 17 18 18

20 20 23 23 24 25 27 27 32 32 39

PART 111: DATA ANALYSIS AND CPAI ADMINISTRATION
Inmate Cohort Data: 1998 Administration of the CPAI Development of An Alternative Methodology

42
42 45 47

PART IV: THE DOC DECISION TO END GRANTS AND DISCUSSION END NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY APPEND1CES

49

53
55 61

Addiction Severity Index ( A S ) - Short Form Addiction Severity Index -Long Form Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI)

111

...

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-. .

ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration #1

“Short Form” of Addiction Severity Index (ASI) used by NJ Department of Corrections

pages 2 1,22

Illustration #2

’

“Graduates” of NJ Department of Corrections’ Therapeutic Communities, 1998, 1999

page 25

Illustration #3

NJ Department of Corrections’ Therapeutic Community Residents’ Organizational Chart

page 30

iv

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PROCESS EVALUATION OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RSAT PROGRAM

PART I

CORRECTIONS BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Statistics indicate that since the early 1970s the prison population in the United States has grown
incrementally. The incarceration rate, which in 1972 was approximately 100 per 100,000 of the population, accelerated by 1999 to 682 per 100,000 (Beck, April 2000). Much of the increase, partictifarly since the early 198Os, is attributed to an increasingly conservative perspective in the country vis-a-vis crime and punishment, and the federal government's war on drugs. During the 1980s congress enacted Iaws that prescribed severe mandatory sentences for violent criminals and drug offenders. These laws were subsequently adopted by many states. During that decade and into the mid 1990s the federal government allocated billions of dollars to provide funding for new prison construction and increased resources to the courts and law enforcement. These funds were designed mainly to improve the criminal justice system's capability for arresting, processing and incarcerating serious, recidivating, drug-addicted offenders. These moves by the federal government - which by nearly all accounts have not stemmed the

flow of drugs into the United States or impacted significantly on their availability on the street - have
created an ancillary problem for both the country and correctional authorities: namely, how to manage a Iargely addicted national prison population of over 1.8 million (Beck, April 2000). The State of New Jersey is ahead of the national curve in terms of increases in the prison population and recognizes the need for more effective drug treatment programs to curb this increase. The number of inmates is over 3 1,000 for the first time, a fivefold increase over the 1980 figure ofjust less than 6000. A recent New York Times article attributed the increases to two dominant factors: a) the large
numbgs of drug offenders being sentenced under New Jersey's mandatory minimum sentence legislation

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

passed in the 198Os, and b) an increasingly conservative state legislature, which recently enacted both a

0

‘‘three strikes law” (life sentences to violent, three time convicted offenders), and an 85% rule (no parole for certain violent offenders until they serve 85% of their sentence), without a single dissenting vote. Former Corrections Commissioner John S.Terhune is quoted as predicting that the current inmate population will increase by another 20% to 37,000 by the year 2005 (Mansnerus, 1999). In order to deal with the burgeoning drug dependent inmate population in the state, the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), in the late I98Os, began to develop experimental “therapeutic community” (TC) programs in their juvenile correctional facilities. The New Jersey Therapeutic Community treatment programs for adult residential substance abusers commenced in March of 1990 with the creation of the Southern State PIER Program, and culminated with the creation of the largest of
the TC Programs at South Woods in May of 1997. The intent of the TC programs was to provide effective

treatment to the large number of inmates who are chronic substance abusers, and to attempt to break the cycle of recidivism inherent to that group. The Department expanded the existing programs in September of 1998 to include a ‘Continuum of Care‘ component. The underlying assumption of the Continuum of Care concept was that drug addiction is an ongoing, life long disease with a high probability of relapse. If chronic substance abuse offenders can be identified during the classification process and assigned to TC programs utilizing the continuum of care protocol, then the cycle of substance abuse, crime, incarceration

and re-incarceration can be broken. The ideal scenario, according to a 1999 DOC memorandum, occurs
when an offender is identified at reception as in need of treatment, assigned to an appropriate treatment program, and, when eligible, processed through a community treatment program prior to release (DOC Memo, 9/2 1/99). While making great strides in terms of program implementation, the Department apparently did not anticipate the eventual need for program evaluation. As a result, a tracking system to monitor inmate progress [or lack of it] through the TCs and the newly added continuum of care components was never developed. This tracking void makes it virtually impossible to determine the

0

reasons for individual inmate success or failure in a particular program, the relative effectiveness of the

TC programs, or the impact of the various treatment components on TC participants.

2

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

-..

.
It seems clear that if we as a nation are serious about addressing the drug abuse-crime

relationship, then the treatment of substance abusers currently under some form of correctional supervision should be a major policy objective. It is also clear that treatment without evaluation leaves correctional officials without the information needed either to enhance effective programs and procedures, or to abandon failing ones. The following brief review of the literature summarizes drug treatment programs in corrections, and the encouraging findings from evaluations of therapeutic community programs throughout the nation.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUGS AND CRIME
Drug abuse has consistently been linked to a high rate of criminal activity (Wish et al., 1984). In
a national study conducted in 13 major cities, 4447% of arrestees used illegal drugs. Results from the

I991 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse showed that drug use is a strong correlate of criminal

0

behavior. Even after controlling for other variables such as age and race, the survey results found drug use indicators to be significantly related to criminal behavior, in terms of both property and violent crimes (Harrison & Gfroerer, 1997). The only sreater predictor was age. Currently, ha!f of state inmates and a third of federal prisoners report committing their offense under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Mumola, 1999). Drug-using felons are also more likely to recidivate. Sixty to seventy-five percent of untreated parolees who have histories of heroin and/or cocaine use are reported to return to using these drugs within 3 months after release and to become reinvolved in criminal activity (Wexler et al., 1988). The effects of this relationship have been seen in all parts of the criminal justice system, particularly corrections. According to an NIJ report (Lipton, 1992), since the second half the 1980s there has been a marked growth in prison and jail populations, continuing
a trend that began in the 1970s. A significant source of these increases is the number of offenders

sentenced to jail and prison for drug offenses. Prisons and US jails house one of the highest concentrations of substance abusers in the world (Tesoriero et al., 1999). The prison population increased two-and-a-half times between 1990 and 1993 alon’e. More than 80% of these inmates recidivate and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

about three in four have used drugs. The US prison population has increased over 50% since 1981, due in large part to a national crackdown on drug related crimes (Lipton et a]., 1992). According to the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) Drug Use Forecasting data (DUF), obtained from a program that monitors the results of drug testing of arrestees in 22 of the country’s largest cities,

60 % of detained arrestees tested positive for the consumption of at least one drug (excluding alcohol)
prior to ami& (Leukefeld and Tims, 1993). Numerous studies have highlighted the fact that the majority of offenders under correctional supervision have abused drugs (Mumola, 1999) and that their drug abusing lifestyle has caused numerous problems for the criminal justice system as well as their families and other community-based social service delivery systems (McShane & Krause, 1993). Results from a study in New York City reported that 80% of those arrested and charged with serious non-drug crimes tested positive for drugs, primarily cocaine and heroin (Wish et al., 1984). McNeece et al. contend that, “From what we have learned about fighting the war on drugs, at least three points have become increasingly clear: ( I ) incarceration does little to break the cycle of illegal drug use and crime, (2) offenders sentenced to incarceration for substance-related offenses exhibit a high rate of recidivism once they are released, and (3) drug abuse treatment has shown to be demonstrably effective in reducing both drug abuse and drug related crime” (McNeece et al., 1999). Unfortunately, most offenders do not take advantage of prison drug treatment programs. “Most drug-using offenders have avoided treatment while active in the community, although some have experienced detoxification several times.” According to one repon (Lipton, 1992), more than 70 percent of active street addicts NYC have never been in treatment

nor intend to enter treatment for their addiction. In both state and federal prisons. the percentage of
addicted inmates who reported being treated for drug abuse since their admission dropped since 1991 (Mumola, 1999).

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECTIONAL DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT
Tesoriero et al. present a history of drug abuse treatment in the prison setting beginning with the opening of U.S. Public Services hospitals in Lexington, Kentucky and Fort Worth, Texas in 1935 and

1938 respectively. These facilities were designed to provide institutional-based drug treatment programs
for offenders and, since those efforts were seen as seminal, to eventually evaluate such programs via clinical research centers to determine if such rehabilitation was possible. However, the shift in correctional paradigms from rehabilitation to ‘ijust desserts” as a result of the 1974 Martinson Report resuited in the termination of these programs and existing plans to expand them. Eventually though, as a resuit of prison overcrowding beginning in the 198Os, the concomitant increase in the number of addicted inmates, and encouraging new findings from experimental institutional-base drug treatment programs, residential substance abuse treatment programs have been revitalized. Substantial funding for such programs was provided by Congress in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
A 1989 NIJ report showed that the percentage of prison inmates in drug treatment programs had

risen from 4% in I979 to 1 1% in 1987 (Tesoriero et al., 1999). In both state and federal prisons, about a quarter of all prisoners from 1991-1997 participated in either drug treatment or other drug abuse programs since admission (Mumola, 1999). These numbers, however, are low when considering how many substance-abusing inmates are not in drug treatment. Among specific types of programs, more state prisoners participated in self-help or peer groups and drug abuse education classes than in residential treatment and professional drug abuse counseling however. Brown (1 992, in Tesoriero et al., 1999) reports that at least 65% of those inmates in need of substance abuse treatment do not receive it. Lipton et

at. (1992) reported that
“recent incomplete surveys of treatment for incarcerated drug abusers show that thirty-nine states use preliminary assessment procedures with newly sentences inmates; forty-four states allow Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Cocaine Anonymous (CA), or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) selfhelp group meetings once or twice a week; 44 states have some form of individual counseling available for drug users; thirty six states have group counseling in which small groups of inmates meet once or twice weekly with a therapist; and thirty states have some types of intensive residential program, often based on the TC model ...”[The TC model is a more intensive level of treatment where inmates are isolated from the general prison population].
5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Thus, the majority of states have some type of drug treatment services available. The isslies are
how available are these services, and are tliey available to all drug-addicted inmates? Several studies cited by Tesoriero et a]. indicate that while drug treatment in prisons is becoming more widely available, the overwhelming majority of inmates with drug problems receive no treatment. Evidence seems to support the claims that the war on drugs has not provided any relief of our nation’s drug problem (Nadelrnann, 1988; Duke and Gross, 1993; Bugliosi, 1996) with the US continuing to have the highest drug use rates of any industrialized nation (Currie, 1993).
As a response to this fact, Congress enacted the Crime Act of 1994, which provided substantial

resources for Federal and State jurisdictions for the first time to expand drug abuse treatment for drug abused offenders entering the criminal justice system. As a result, two federal government initiatives to aid states in their efforts to begin or expand comprehensive programs were created. Project REFORM

b

(fiinded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance) and Project RECOVERY (funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment) assist states in the development of effective prison-based treatment for incarcerated drug abusers. Project REFORM,for example, laid the groundwork for the development of prison-based treatment for incarcerated drug abusers. “Perhaps, most important, it had a catalytic effect on the correctional community in general, promoting corrections officials to shift their thinking toward rehabilitation, a concept that had been in abeyance for some time” (Lipton, 1995). Eleven states participated in Project REFORM and implemented comprehensive treatment plans resulting in a significant expansion in the availability of drug treatment service for inmates (Lipton 1998). It also had indirect beneficial effects on the correctional systems of the participating states. Some 22 states were given support to expand or expand drug treatment in the state. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment‘s funding of Project RECOVERY in 1991 provided funding for technical assistance and training for states planing to implement new prison drug treatment programs.
I

0

For a detailed description of treatment s>.stemcomponents implemented from Project REFORM see Lipton 1992; and 1998).
6

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Palmer’s 1996 examination of 32 meta-analyses and literature reviews also yielded results favoring treatment, the most effective being behavioral approaches and life skills programs. Behavioral approaches include contracting and token economies. Life skills programs include academic training, vocational training, outdoor experience, and drug treatment. This diverse yet conceptually coherent approach was among the more successful approaches observed by Lipsey (1992). Gendreau found that behavioral intervention strategies work best by providing intense services which occupy 40% to 70% of an offenders time over a 3 to 9 month period. He defines behavioral strategies as programs based on the principles of operant conditioning. “At the core of operant conditioning is the concept of reinforcement, which refers to the strengthening or increasing of a behavior so that it will continue to be performed in the future” (Gendreau, p. 120). Positive reinforcements (those that are pleasant and desirable) are more effective and ethically supportable to strengthen desired behavior as opposed to negative (punishment) reinforcements, according to the author. He recommends utilizing at least hvo of the following positive reinforcement strategies in offender behavioral treatment programs: a) Token economies which motivate offenders (in groups) to behave in pro-social ways by awarding tangible or symbolic “tokens’’ such as points. b) Modeling or using role models who demonstrate desired behavior that the offender can benefit from imitating. c) Cognitive behavioral treatment models that “...are intended to change the offender’s cognition, attitudes, values, and expectations that maintain antisocial behavior.” * Gendreau maintains that his research on “punishing smarter’’ programs which utilize intensive supervision (ISP) have shown them to be failures. This type of strategy includes a subgroup of programs that greatly increase the contact between supervisors and offenders such as home confinement, electronic monitoring, shock incarceration and boot camp. According to Gendreau, “The analysis (of punishing smarter programs) consisted of 174 comparisons between a punishment group and a control group. ... (and) produced, on average, a slight increase of recidivism of 2 % (Gendreau, pp. 126-127). The offender

0

Anderson for more information on Modeling therapy and, ContemDorarv Behavioral Therapy, 2”dEdition ( I 993), by Spiegler, M and Guevremont, D., published by Brooks/Cole for additional information relative to cognitive behavioral treatments.

’Recommended reading, The Psycholog?*of Criminal Condzrcr, by Andrews, D and Bonta, J. (1994), published by

8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

behavior modification literature clearly indicates that “disastrous consequences occur in programs in which punishment and control are emphasized over all else” (Gendreau, p. 129). He concludes the article

by indicating the evidence is persuasive that specific styles of service delivery (utilizing behavioral
strategies) can reduce offenders’ criminal behavior to a degree that has profound policy implications (Gendreau, p. 130):
It has been estimated that 62% of all U.S. prisoners used drugs on a regular basis prior to

imprisonment (Innes, 1988). Since American correctional institutions manage such a high percentage of drug addicted clients, a number of treatment programs have been developed over the years that take into account institutional factors such as custody requirements, projected time in confinement, cost of treatment, levels of addiction, etc. Unfortunately, this institutional triage screens out many individuals who otherwise should receive intensive drug abuse treatment. Gerstein and Harwood (1990) estimate that more than 1 miliion persons in custody or under community supervision need drug treatment, yet only one in 10 receive the needed services. Heroin and crack addicts, the most serious of these offenders, are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime according to Tesoriero et al. (1999), and should receive treatment priority, particularly pending release back into the community. “From a criminal justice perspective, any measurable reduction in an inmate’s dependency on drugs can be expected to result in a decrease in disruptive behavior while in prison and a reduction in criminal behavior upon release” (Tesoriero et al). Brown (1992) points out that prison-based drug treatment programs fall into four general categories:

I ) Incarceration without specialized drug treatment services (experienced by 65% of inmates in need of such treatment). 2) Drug education and counseling programs (individual or group) are the most common in facilities with specialized treatment components. 3) Self-help groups initiated by inmates such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). 4) Therapeutic Communities (TCs)
3

For comprehensive discussion of prison based TC evaluations see Rouse, 1991, Leukefeld and Tim, 1992, and Lipton, 1994 in reference section.

9
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

....

.

THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY PROGRAMS (TCs).
Research indicates that with the exception of TC programs, there is little support for the effectiveness of residential substance abuse treatment programs (Lipton et al. 1992). Expecting drug education programs to reduce future use for inmates who are described as “fairly sophisticated street pharmacologists” is naive, and individual counseling programs have been shown to have little impact on reducing recidivism. Likewise, AA and AN programs, despite anecdotal evidence, lack scientific research supporting their effectiveness (Lipton et al., 1992). As indicated above, 75% percent of “untreated cocaine or heroin users essentially drug free during confinement - recidivate within three months of release on parole” (Wexler et a]., 1988).

-

”A TC is a residential treatment environment that provides an around-the-clock learning
experience in which the drug user’s changes in conduct, attitude, values, and emotions are implemented, monitored, and reinforced on a daily basis” (DeLeon 1986 in McNeece et al.). Typically, a TC is highly structured, and treatment lasts anywhere from 3-1 5 months. The treatment philosophy of therapeutic communities is that substance abuse is a disorder of the entire person, that the problem lies in the person, not the drug, and that addiction is only a symptom and not the essence of the disorder (Pan et a]., 1993 in McNeece et a[.). A therapeutic treatment program may include individual, group, and family counseling.

The TC staff generally are recovering addicts who have successfully completed treatment in a TC. The
key component. however, is the peer encounter that takes place in the group process. Tesoriero et al. found, in reference to the TC approach, that there is a vast amount of research to indicate that residential drug treatment in a prison setting does produce favorable outcomes. He points to Rouse’s research that indicates that, “In every case where statistics are available, the recidivism rates of program participants [in TC programs] are at least 10% lower than a control group” (Rouse, 1991). Wexler ( 1 994) describes the general features of therapeutic community drug treatment models as

foIlows:

10

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.._. .

Treatment services based on a clear and consistent treatment philosophy An atmosphere of empathy and safety Recruitment and maintenance of a committed, qualified staff Clear and unambiguous rules of conduct Use of ex-offenders and ex addicts as role models, staff, and volunteers Use of poor role models and peer pressure Provision of relapse prevention programs Establishment of continuity of care throughout custody and community aftercare Integration of treatment evaluations into the design of the program

Other research indicates that isolating inmates in a TC away from the general population is important
(Wexler and Williams, 1986). It is important to gauge the intensity of the program to the needs of the participants (McLellan et al., 1986). Inmates who are remanded to community-based drug treatment programs do as well as those who participate voluntarily (Hubbard et al., 1989). Before 1980, relatively few evaluations of drug treatment programs (including therapeutic communities) were conducted. The TC approach is one of the few programs that has undergone rigorous evaluations in several sites across the country. Presently, evaluations of therapeutic communities, sponsored by the NIJ, are currently under way or completed. Some of the states involved, such as New

Yo& Oregon, Delaware, and California, have presented encouraging evidence that therapeutic
communities work to prevent future drug use and crime. This research indicates that the TC approach produces favorable outcomes for drug addicted inmates who go through the program. In the next section of this report, the researchers present the results of a year-and-a-half process evaluation of the therapeutic community/continuum of care treatment programs provided to substance abusers residing in correctional facilities in New Jersey.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

... .

. .

PART 11: HISTORY AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF RSAT PROGRAM
The Process Evaluation of the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program was implemented as part of the nation-wide effort by the National Institute of Justice to determine the effectiveness of this type of treatment. These programs were established Over fie years by state legislation and supported by federal funds. The National Institute of Justice provided additional funding for their evaluation, and by 1998, seventeen states had already been awarded funds for conducting local (statewide) evaluations. The New Jersey Department of Corrections, i n collaboration with The Criminal Justice Center at The College of New Jersey, responded to the solicitation from the NIJ
to assess the RSAT Program in New Jersey, and in 1999 was awarded grants to provide Process and

Outcome evafuations. This report deals onlv with the Process Evaluation of the RSAT Program.
A process evaluation is one in which the focus is on the local program’s adherence to the original

design model. In it, researchers collect data by observing program functions, examining program documents, and interviewing staff to determine whether the program is reaching the target population, and whether the program is being implemented as designed. The information obtained from the process evaluation can then be utilized in making management decisions by the agency responsible for the program. Generally, this Process Evaluation sought to:
1. Examine the implementation of the NJDOC assessment and screening protocol, and provide a

qualitative systems analysis of the program’s “Continuum of Care’’ component.

2.

Identify the type of treatment interventions and program components used by all RSAT delivery systems, and

3. Conduct an objective assessment of the appropriateness of treatment, and the extent to which
the programs adhere to principles associated with successfully reducing recidivism.

12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The two Co-Principle Investigators (Co-PIS) at The Criminal Justice Center were Drs. Roben J. McCormack, the Center’s Director, and Mario Paparoui, its Associate Director. The research tasks were divided among two teams, each led by one of the two Co-PIS. Dr. McCormack’s research team (Team 1) was responsible for developing the literature revie\\, reviewing DOC materials relative to the RSAT Program, and conducting a systems analysis of the entire RSAT process, as well as conducting the day to day administration of the grant. Dr. Paparozzi’s research team (Team 2) was to select random samples of inmates who participated in the RSAT program (the experimental group), and of inmates with similar backgrounds, who for administrative reasons did not participate in the RSAT program (the comparison group). Additionally, Team 2 was to administer the Correctional Program Assessment inventory (CPAI), an instrument that examines the effectiveness of corrections drug treatment programs. Finally, the team was to interview RSAT-involved inmates regarding the impact of the program on the quality of their lives, particularly as this related to increased involvement in families and communities. Both teams were to contribute to report writing. The results of the system analysis of the RSAT program are reported in the following portions of this section. The results of the research conducted by Research Team #2 can be found in Section 111 of this report. The Process Evaluation of the New Jersey Department of Correction’s (DOC) Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program (RSAT) began on October 1, 1999 (its original January 1, 1999 starting date was postponed because of funding delays). The DOC and the Criminal Justice Center at The College ofNew Jersey (TCNJ) were informed, at about the same time (October 1999), that the National Institute of Justice had awarded them the Outcome Evaluation for RSAT as well. Both grants involve a collaborative effort between the DOC and TCNJ. After initial meetings with Department of Corrections officials in early October 1999, the first stage of the Process Evaluation commenced with a literature review of drug abuse treatment generally, of correctional residential substance abuse treatment programs, of the structure and modalities of the programs, and of program evaluation protocols. Simultaneously, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) was

@

established at TCNJ to review the methodology, relative to issues pertaining to studies involving human

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

a

subjects. It met in October 1999 and approved the methodologies of both the Process and Outcome Evaluations. During November and December of 1999, researchers conducted site visits at the DOC’S Central Reception Assignment Facility (CRAF). Work commenced on the selection of the experimental and comparison groups, and the data collection associated with those groups. (This latter process will be discussed later in some depth).

RSAT PROGRAM INCEPTION
As indicated in Part I, the New Jersey Therapeutic Community (TC) treatment programs for adult

residential substance abusers commenced in 1990. The intent of the programs was to provide effective treatment to the large number of inmates who are chronic substance abusers, and to attempt to break the cycle of relapse and recidivism inherent in that group. In March of 1990, the Southern State Correctional Facility’s “PIER Program (Persons Incarcerated Entering Recovery), and the “Ackerman Program” for female inmates at Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, began operations. The “BRIDGE”Program (Beginning Recovery Involving Dedication, Gratitude and Effort) at Riverfront began in 1992, followed by “No Return” at Northern State in November 1996 (which moved to Garden State in 1998), and “First Step,” also at Garden State, in Februarq. 1997. The largest of the TC Programs, at South Woods, created
in May of 1997 to hold 500 inmates in four separate units, was not fully operational until January of 1999.

A Community Readjustment Unit was begun in 1997 to deal with the special problems of program

faiiures, and most recently a “STIPP” Program (Special Treatment, Intervention and Prevention Program)

has been initiated for inmates who have violated the “zero tolerance” policy of the Department, i.e., tested
positive for drugs. The Department expanded the existing programs in September of 1998 to include a “Continuum of Care” component, which provides continued supervision and treatment to addicted inmates after completion of the TC segment of the RSAT program. These programs were supported by various federal grants over the years. From the beginning, the therapeutic community program, which became known as the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program (RSAT), has’been dynamic, recreating itself several times by

14

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.._. .

eliminating structural elements that have not proved successful, and adding new treatment modalities, eligibility requirements, and policies and procedures. This has been particularly true in 1999 and 2000, during which time the program was expanded by adding additional screening personnel, reaching out to a more inclusive inmate clientele (all inmates passing through the Central Reception Assignment Facility are now evaluated for substance abuse), and strengthening its community treatment component. During

all of this time, however, no formal evaluation of the TCs by independent researchers has been
undertaken.
*.

RSAT PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS
CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT

Within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the intake process for inmates is monitored by Central Reception Assignment Facility (CRAF) operations. The CRAF Intake Unit is responsible for determining the optimal placement for the inmate based on inmate need and institutional space, while the Reception Unit is responsible for the inmate evaluation and classification process. Assignments to facilities are then implemented. Each aspect of the intake process was visited and observed by the researchers.

Central Reception Assignment Facility (CRAF)
The researchers observed the operations of the Central Reception Assignment Facility (CRAF) during visits to that facility in Trenton during November and December 1999. All of the top-level oficials of CRAF were interviewed during this period, as well as observations of the three-day intake orientation, the so-called "batching" process, the administration of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) questionnaire, and a Classification Committee meeting. Male offenders are classified and assigned to various institutional facilities and programs at CRAF.The classification for female offenders is conducted at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (EMCF).
15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

CRAF Intake Unit
The institutional gatekeeper for CRAF is its Intake Unit, which maintains the “Daily Housing Population Report.” This report contains the operational capacity of every facility and program operated

by the Department, their daily inmate count, and the operational capacity variance (the bed space or lack
thereof) for each institution. The Intake Unit maintains an ongoing (daily) liaison with these facilities and with the parole board in order to maximize the placement of state inmates being held at county jails into state operated programs and institutions. It utilizes a computerized program for its inmate tracking, which allows for real-time accuracy of the count. The CRAF facility has an operational capacity of 1174 inmates, and the number of admissions to the reception facility on any given day is a function of the available space at that facility. CRAF holds four classification committee hearings each week, and assigns inmates to programs and institutions throughout the state based on inmate need and available bed space.

In many instances, individuals assigned to drug treatment programs are temporarily assigned to the
general population in the institution in which the TC program is housed until space in the program opens up. The wait can be anything from several days to several months. The waiting list for each program is

also computerized and monitored by the Intake Unit, and is maintained in chronological order to assure
timely placement.

County Jail Confinement
Many state inmates are confined in county jail facilities for long periods of time because of overcrowding at state institutions. They stabilize their drug addiction through forced abstinence (“cold turkey”). through the services of contract drug-treatment providers, or, in some cases, as a result of hospitalization. Depending on the level of internal security at these facilities, inmates have been drug free for considerable periods of time before admission to CRAF for classification. Many of them are given custody status by CRAF’s classification unit while at the countyjail based upon their inmate file, but are
not screened by AS1 evaluators. Some of them never make it to a state institution. They either “max out”

or become eligible for parole while in county facilities. A significant percentage of them are chronic drug

16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

users in serious need of treatment, which is not being provided. (Internal studies by the DOC indicate that

between 65% to 75% of state inmates have chronic drug/alcohol dependency. The national average is
80%. See Profile of Male Offender Statistical Analvsis, NJDOC, 1999).

Clearly, the program is not reaching a significant number of the approximately 3000 state inmates
J . l

confined in county jail facilities. Since this population includes many young, non-violent, substanceaddicted offenders, who without treatment will predictably re-offend upon release, the program should be expanded to evaluate and provide treatment programs for these inmates.

CRAF Reception Unit
All state inmates being transferred from county jail facilities to state institutions must be evaluated and classified. The process begins at the CRAF Reception Unit. The Reception Unit regime is g e n e d y a three-day process. The first day involves an orientation and medical and dental screening. The second day involves a “batching” process, which includes a battery of inmate interviews by psychologists, social workers, classification specialists and addiction severity index evaluators. On the third day, after a review of the inmate’s medical history and batching reports, the Institutional Classification Committee meets individually with each inmate and assigns him to an appropriate correctional facility. Inmates may
be assigned or referred to one of the following programs or institutions: (1) a Therapeutic Community Program (TC) for inmates with an AS1 score of 5 or higher, who

have 6 to 30 months before parole eligibility;4who are eligible for full minimum security and who are also eligible for participation in the Intensive Parole Drug Program upon release to parole;

(2) a Community Readjustment Unit for community offender failures of one kind or another;
(3) a Residential Community Release Program for specified inmates with less serious substance
abuse problems (scores of from 1-4 on the ASI);

4

The September 1, 1998 Memo indicated 12 to 30 months before parole eligibility. This was superceded by a September 21,1999 Memo, “New Jersey Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment Policy and Procedures - Revision” which reduced the minimum time before parole eligibility to 6 months and contained other programmatic changes. . .

17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-..

( 4 ) the Supervisor, Office of D u Program Operations, for inclusion in an expedited substance rg

abuse program to insure appropriate treatment for inmates with chronic addiction problems and minimal length of sentence;
( 5 ) a correctional facility with a deferred treatment intervention for inmates who have been

identified as having severe AS1 of 5 or higher) or moderate (AS1 score of between 1 and 4) substance abuse problems but with over 30 months before their parole eligibility date; or (6) another correctional facility for inmates with an AS1 score of zero or for those not eligible for full minimum custody.

Due to severe internal pressures related to prisoner logistics, the CRAF classification process
from reception to institutional assignment is concerned primarily with maximizing the utilization of available bed space.

Administration of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) The current DOC policies and procedures for the administration of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) questionnaire are presented in a CRAF policy directive. This document specifies that: a) an AS1 representative, following the scheduled batch processing (i.e., the medical, psychological, classification evaluations referenced previously), shall interview all inmates received at the Central Reception and Assignment Facility.
b) all AS1 interviews shall be conducted at the housing unit (Section 3.2);

c) AS1 staff interviewers shall inform the housing unit officer of any inmate(s) who has not been interviewed;
d) arrangements should be made between the AS1 interviewer and the housing unit officer to have

the inmate(s) (who have not been interviewed) available the following day to have the AS1 completed.

-DOC Policy Paper, 4A: I .2
The policy directive clearly intends that all inmates will be subject to an AS1 evaluation. Background of AS1 Form The Addiction Severity Index currently utilized by the DOC is an abbreviated version of one developed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Veterans Administration Center for Studies of Addiction

18

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

in 1980 (see appendix B). According to the guide for its administration, it was “designed to provide
important information about those aspects of a patient’s life that may contribute to his or her substance

abuse syndrome” (Univ. of Penn. Guide). The original, longer AS1 form is comprised of four parts, and
gathers data as to general information about the patient, their legal status, family history. and farnily/social relationships. Each of the areas is scored and given a Severity Profile rating. The guidebook indicates that there are “...complicated (statistical) formulas used in the calculation of these composites (scores on the instrument)... (which) have been very useful to researchers as mathematically sound measures of change in a problem status....These (severity) ratings ...are perhaps the most vulnerable of all
AS1 items to the influences of poor interviewing skills, patient misrepresentation or lack of

comprehension, and even the surroundings under which the interview is conducted“ (Guide, p.3). While indicating that the longer AS1 has been used for the assessment of other groups of subjects, the Guide cautions about the reliability and validity of the administration of the instrument under different circumstances:

Appropriate Popirlntions - Can I use rlie ASI with samples o Sitbstance Abusing Prisoners or f
Psyclrinrrically Ill Siibsrriiice Abusers?

Because the AS/ has been shown to be reliable and valid among substance-abusers a~plyi)ip ireotnient, many workers in relaredfields have used the ASI with substance for
ubir~iilg sanlplesfrom their populations. For. exaniple, the ASI has been used at the time

o incarceration anaor paroie/probution to evulirate substance abuse and other problems f in criminal populations. In addition, became of the widespread substance abuse among nientahjJill and homeless populations, rhe ASI also has been used among these groups. While we have collaborated with many workers on the use of the instrument with these populations, it should be clear [hat [here are no relicibilitv or validiw studies of the instrimtent in these gomlations. (Guide,pp. 3/4)

19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The AS1 form currently being used by the NJ DOC is not the same as the one developed by the University of Pennsylvania. It is an amended and abbreviated version of the original, referred to as the
"short" form, and deals almost exclusively with inmates' substance abuse problems. The short form

records information with regard to inmate personal data, arrest and conviction histov, and substance abuse and treatment history. Additionally, it requires the interviewer to intuitively rate the severity ofthe addiction. (See Illustration # 1, following pages) By comparison, it should be noted that the short form, which is not scorable, is less obiective than the long one. and thus scientificallv less effective in auantifiing the severitv of addiction, or for making assignments to the various drug treatment Drograms available.

Organization of the NJ DOC AS1 Team
The Addiction Severity Index (ASI) Team is supervised by the director of community programs.
It is coordinated on a day-to-day basis by a supervising program specialist, assisted by a technical

assistant. The team is comprised of six AS1 evaluators, four of whom have been hired over the last year or
so. During the year 1998, the target year of the Process and Outcome Evaluations, the assessment team

consisted of at least two full time evaluators. During an interview with the Department's training officer, it was indicated that perhaps there was one other evaluator during that period. He indicated that he believed all of the evaluators had college degrees.

The AS1 Training Program
AS1 evaluators are given a one-week training program to orient them to the Department

of Corrections and to the AS1 Team operations. Two days of the training program are devoted to the policies and procedures related to administering the ASI. The trainees view a series of video tapes created by the developers of the AS1 instrument, the University of Pennsylvania's Veterans Administration Center for Studies of Addiction. The trainees are given the opportunity to conduct

20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RECEPTION CENTEWSUBSTAIICE ABUSE DATA
I

n.
I"*rn....,.

!

IntervlewData
Institution

/*

Inha4

I

TimaByua

Time Ended

Satellite

- __
: t

!

MVPM
WM
I

0

Biddata

Inmate I
b a t Name

MaldFemala

First Nun4

Home Addresr
SLab

City Zip Code county Last Grade School [Completed) MaritalStatm
*

Telephone Raw

U

___

SSI

ARREST I UJNWCTKJNI SENTENCINGINFORYAnON
I

arrcati prior 24 monthr

TOO Term

yrn.
ym.

mntha
mntha.

'

Total prior a r r o t i Total prior c o n v i c t i o n r Total prior incarcerationm

M M M ~

PED or Time Goal
10. Crnnabir

Date admitted
County Jail
Date admitted Rcecotion

Current oRenss
I
I

Y M r r L u u

I
SUBSTANCE ABUSE INFORMATION

War crime drug influenced?
If drug influenced, why? 1 money ta suppart habit 1 2) high at time of offense

Rimv dny
Year of. lit u e

Primary drug route use

Frequency une (primary d n y )
Weekly msl of

13. More than one r u b r t m a per day (iicluds dtohol)

I

DAYS

I

I

lrdrueoffense,war it purely for profit?

btalh&it $
ADMCTlON SEVERITY INDEX RATING

14. Which

S U b B b e S i B &e major problem? (Plcue codem above; or 00 -No problem: 15 -Alcohol & D n y : Dud Mdiaioo: 16 Polydw: r b m net clur, ask)

-

Severity Profile

0-1 No real problem, treatment nol Indicated

23 Slight problem, treatmcat pmbably not newssaw .

nu
WMle

4.5 Moderate problem, some treatmen indicated

6-7 Considerable problem, treatment nececssv 8-9 Extreme problem, treatment absolutely necessav
RICE Anrriean lodim .AI N a b l a PI&*

15. How low wns your ! tperiod ofvolcntary abrtinene from thir majar r u b r b a ? u (MI. never abitinentl

16. How many month* ago did thii abstinence end? (oi). rtill &itinant)
Other. 'Is

.wH B t d BL

.AN

"IC:

Purrlo Ricla .Iff R

M4c.a.

HM

Cuban. HC

Columbila

.HCO

Mla PdfiC I a l d O r Dominkla.

m m m
MOKIRS

Illustration #1: "Short Form" of Addiction Severity Index (ASI) used by NJ Department of Corrections; pages I and 2

21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DRUWALCOHOL US€

’
I I

!

,
17. How mmny Umei hive you:

Had dcohol d. t ‘I . Overdosed on drug0 Pr0thm@

23.D u r k tha pait 30 dayi. how troubled or bothered havo yau k n by: e
18. How many times io your lire have you been treated for:

Lhu Roblomi
24. At thin point in time, how Important 11 I1 b you (0 get Ireatment for !

Alcohol Rablemi
Dnl# Roblerm

..
19. How many of there were dctax only?

E 3 E

RammmmBRlD!mxx~
25.

How do you rate the inmate’s need for tremlmmt fer:

D w Roblomi
Alcohol Pmblemr

190. How many of them propsms did you complete?

E

20.

How much would you say you spent during the lriL 30 dayi,
before incarceration, on:

Alcabol

Drug

m]
*

CONFlDENCT RATINCE

26. Inmate’* mirmprasmtetion?

27. lnmatdi inability 16 underitand?

21. How many daya have you been treated for alcohol or d w s in the

past 30 days? (Include N.A.,A h . psychiatrist)

you experienced

1
D u Roblems rg

Illustration #1 (continued): “Short Form” of Addiction Severity index (ASI) used by NJ Department of Corrections; pages 3 and 4

22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

mock administrations of the AS]. Their initial evaluations are critiqued by peers and veteran
members of the team. [Gonzalez, 1999, personal interview]

Suggested Changes in AS1 Administration

The locale used for administering the AS1 evaluation, specified as ‘*thehousing unit” in
the CR4F Policy Directive previously cited, appears to diminish the effective administration of the instrument. The AS1 interviews generally occur after the batching process has been completed. During that process, the social worker, psychologist and classification specialist have access to each inmate’s personal files. Background information contained therein is utilized to aid their determinations. In contrast, AS1 evaluations take place in other parts of the institution, remote from the inmate files and lacking in privacy. Evaluators rely on the veracity of the inmates’ answers to determine the number of prior arrests, the nature and seriousness of the current and prior offenses, the extent of prior drug and alcohol use, and any prior substance-abuse treatment they have received. There are, most likely. legitimate institutional concerns, such as prisoner control, that have influenced the development of the process as it now exists. However, the researchers feel that administration of the AS1 would be improved significantly by making its administration an integral part of the “batching” process, or by requiring AS1 evaluators to review an inmate‘s personal file at some time during the assessment.

AS1 ReIiability
After observing the AS1 administration, probably the most serious concern on the part of the researchers was the reliability of the instrument to objectively assess the levels of substance abuse among inmates. Given the lack of background information on the inmate being evaluated

as indicated above, the evaluators rely exclusively on their ability to assess the veracity of the
answers of the interviewee during a ten-minute interview. Certainly, the AS1 training program (however brief), the evaluator’s prior educational and employment experiences, and their current

23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-..

experience as an AS1 evaluator contribute to this ability. However, the determination of the critical level of substance abuse for each administration of the AS1 appears to be largely a subjective one. There is no quantifiable (objective) part of the instrument which the evaluator can utilize to make a reliable distinction between a score of four or five, for example, which is cmcial
to the decision to admit or reject an inmate for participation in a Therapeutic Community

Program? For these reasons, the researchers recommend that the use of this form be reviewed. More appropriate and objective instruments specifically created for screening correctional inmates for drug abuse have been developed over the past several years. The Texas Christian University Drug Screen (“TCUDS”; see Appendix C), developed by Drs. Dwayne Simpson, Kevin Knight and Kirk Broome, is being used as the primary screening tool for assessing drug abuse problems and treatment needs by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Twelve other states have recently

0

adopted or are considering adopting the instrument. It includes a nine point scoreable questionnaire that discriminates between relatively severe drug related problems and those that are less severe. The instrument also indicates the drug(s) the respondent feels is responsible for
his or her drug-related problems.

Estimates of Program Completion

Discussions with the Department’s training officer and RSAT historian revealed that only about I200 of the 6000 inmates who have been assigned to TCs since 1990 have completed the program. Roughly 40% are given “unfavorable terminations,” 40% leave for treatment, parole or other administrative reasons, and approximately 20% complete the program. The following chart,

These statements may appear to dispute the researcher’s comments in the Interim Report dated 7/30/00, which indicated that despite the lack ofquantifiable results, “ ...the AS1 form [being used by the DOC], when administered by trained, experienced social workers, can discriminate between inmates who have moderate to severe levels of addiction ...and those with low levels or no addiction problems.” The comment was included in the repon as a result of a suggestion by the DOC Project Director, in place of the original language used by the researchers.
24

5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

derived from DOC figures, indicates the number of inmates “graduating” from the various treatment programs in 1998 and 1999.

Illustration #2 Graduates of NJ DOC Therapeutic Communities Promam
Edna Mahon

1998, Males

1998, Females
43

1999, Males

1999, Females
47

Ackerrnan Program
Garden State First Step Program Garden State No Return, Units 1&2
78
86
111 74

Riverfiont

20

40

BRIDGE Program
Southern State PIER program South Woods
Community Returns South Woods NuWay Program

30
1

53
54

58

20 1

Totals, all TCs

1998:

316

1999:

581

The Role of the Case Manager According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment Policy and Procedures, a Case Manager is “an individual who.possesses addiction treatment expertise, and is responsible to oversee an offenders’ treatment plan, inclusive of the coordination of services with all providers througlioiit the continuum of care ....Case managers have the unique role to serve as the linchpin between an offender and the continuum of care treatment providers. They are on the staff of the Office of Drug Program Operations, Division of Parole and Community Programs. As specialists in addiction treatment, Case Managers are responsible for establishing, upon admission, an inmate’s treatment plan and overseeing its implementation. Case Managers make site visits to the treatment providers to monitor client treatment progress and resolve issues of mutual concern.”

- (Treatment Policy, 9/1/98).

25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.. ..

.

The role of the Case Manager was created at about the time that Correctional Medical Services (CMS), the Department’s contract provider for medical and substance abuse treatment services, was delegated the responsibility for the operations of the therapeutic communities (TCs)

in 1996.
According to the DOC Memorandum referenced above, a TC refers to “a self-contained unit within a correctional facility which houses inmates assigned to a treatment program in which trained staff provide intensive therapeutic intervention and programming” (Treatment Policy,
9/1/98). From reviewing the DOC literature at the time, it is clear that the Case Managei’s role
was to provide DOC oversight and supervision of the TCs being operated by CMS (and other

service providers), to assure that it was fulfilling its contractual treatment obligations. Despite significant efforts, the researchers could find no DOC person with the designation “case manager,” or anyone filling that role as defined in the DOC’S Treatment Policy memorandum. Some of the duties seem to be carried out by a variety of individuals: at the beginning of the continuum of care process‘by AS1 technicians; in mid-process by counselors at the TCs; and at the end by parole officers. There appears to be no one group that has responsibility for developing, implementing and monitoring an inmate’s treatment plan from classification through release from parole, or for bridging the “oversight” gap that exists between the DOC and CMS once the inmate is placed in CMS custody. Given the critical nature of the case manager’s role in the continuum of care process, and the breadth of services they are required to provide to TC clients, it would seem that a large number of Case Managers should be
in place to shoulder the case load of some 1200 or so inmates currently in therapeutic

communities.

26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

TREATMENT
Correctional Medical Services’ Therapeutic Communities Until 1996, specially selected and trained DOC staff and professionals operated the therapeutic communities throughout the state. In April of 1996, the NJDOC contracted with Correctional Medical Services (CMS) to run the day-to-day activities of the TCs in order to improve the quality of services delivered to addicted inmates. A component of Spectrum Healthcare Services, lnc., CMS is the nation’s leading provider of contract healthcare services to prisons and jails. CMS contracts with physicians and employs healthcare professionals who provide care to inmates at correctional facilities in 27 states. Correctional institutions across the country, including facilities in Ohio, Wyoming, St. Louis, and Michigan, have partnered with

CMS to provide better health care for inmates in a secure environment. Through effective costcontrol systems, CMS claims to significantly increase the quality of inmate health care, while controlling costs. By enhancing on-site resources, focusing on both prevention and early detection, and utilizing its national buying power, CMS promises to reduce the cost of providing medical, dental, and mental health care for inmates (CMS 2000).
It was the intention of both the process and outcome evaluations to assess CMS’ impact

on inmate treatment in the TCs. Researchers visited each of the DOC’S ten TCs being operated

by CMS. All of the TCs utilize a structure that is best described by the generic description
contained in the CMS/SBS (Spectrum Behavioral Services) Resident Handbook (CMS/SBS TC Residential Handbook). The following is a synopsis of a 30-page outline of CMSISBS program

goals; structure; day to day operations; treatment activities; and staff organization. While there is

some variation in TC programming, almost all NJ DOC TCs follow this protocol.

The Resident Handbook provides audiences from the substance abuse treatment and human service communities, both prison and community-based, with a generic description of the organization and management of the prison-based therapeutic

27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

communities (TC) operated by CMS (a division of Spectrum Behavioral Services) under contract with the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC). According to CMS,
a TC is “a communal, drug-free residential rehabilitation center in which chemical

dependency is treated as a topic in the individual’s life which contributes to other areas of life being out of control. Within the structure of each TC, techniques are used to re-direct
2

the recovering addict’s lifestyle so he/she has the opportunity to become responsible individuals” (CMS:5). The underlying philosophy of the TC is that “recovery is possible for anyone at any time with no greater prerequisite than a sincere desire for, and commitment to change” (p. 5 ) . Recovery involves learning to live life comfortably and enjoyably as a substance-free, crime-free member of the community. It also involves learning how to work, to develop effective and satisfying interpersonal relationships, to strengthen interpersonal relationships, to strengthen family ties, and to practice leisure ’activities, all without the need for or use of drugs (CMS:5). Generally speaking, a TC represents a highly structured environment with defined boundaries. It employs community-imposed sanctions and penalties as well as earned advancement of status and privileges as part of the recovery and growth process. inmates in a therapeutic community are known as family members or residents as in any family setting. They are not patients, as in an institution. These residents play a significant role in managing the TC and acting as positive role models for others to emulate. Members and staff act as facilitators, emphasizing personal responsibility for one‘s own life and for self-improvement. Peer pressure is most often the catalyst that converts criticism and personal insight into positive change. High expectations and high commitment from both members and staff support this positive change. Insight into one’s problem is gained through group and individual interaction, a key component of any TC program. The Therapeutic Community structure is based on both a social and business hiergrchy model. By dividing the community into separate departments and job functions, harmony between social, interpersonal relationships and everyday work responsibilities can be achieved. The Resident Structure is a hierarchy, which can be broken down into four tier systems of operations. On the highest management level is the T.O.P. (top of the population) made up of the more experienced residents who, in linear chain of command,

28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

oversee mid-level managers (department heads), line managers (department head aides) and lower level of line operations (See Illustration #S). The Resident Handbook was prepared to help members understand why they are

in the program, what they will be experiencing and learning, and how to familiarize
themselves with the concepts of the therapeutic community environment. Program residents are expected to be available to participate in programs on a full-time basis. Individuals who do not have a GED should have K day school, K day treatment cycle; individuals with a GED or higher should participate in a full day program. Once individuals move out of the orientation phase, the treatment team may allow oth& activities for the participants such as work off unit, etc. AI1 participants have a job within the program and all job functions within the program can have a dollar value attached to
them. Residents in orientation are allowed to participate on a full-time basis until they

have at least completed orientation. Residents are expected to follow a list of program rules and regulations outlined in the Handbook! Those who commit infractions of program rules receive various types

of disciplinary actions, the severity of which are contingent upon the nature and
frequency of the infraction(s). Residents and staff confront those who do not comply with program rules. Infractions are reported to the Coordinators, and they in turn report the infractions to staff. The choice of sanctions and work assignments depends upon the nature and seriousness of the infraction(s). The TCs in New Jersey incorporate three phases. The first phase of the program

is orientation, which lasts a minimum of 30 days. The primary objective of this phase is
to help residents understand all the rules and regulations of the program and the basic and concepts of the TC. The top of the populations (T.O.P.), program staff are responsible for the indoctrination of new residents. At the orientation phase, emphasis is not placed on the technical aspects of the program as much as with just getting the new residents to accept the new way of life and beginning the process of changing behaviors

See Appendix

29

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

,

RESIDENT’S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

.

L=l
I SR. EXPEDITOR I
I
1

COORDINATOR

CHIEF EXPEDITOR

I

I SR. EXPEDITOR I

ISR. EXPEDITOR I
U

IEXPEDITOR

I

IEXPEDITORI
?

I
DEPARTMENT HEAD LOGICIA

I

I

I

DEPARTMENT HEAD MEDIA

I
LOGICIANS

I
MEDIA

DEPARTMENT HEAD UNIT CLERK,.

I

DEPARTMENT HEAD 0RIENTATlON

2

1

I

Illustration #2: NJ DOC Tlierapeutic Community Residents’ Organizational Chart (from CMS Handbook)

30

I

i

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

and attitudes. New residents will also learn self-discipline and awareness to withdraw from old negative behavior patterns. The main treatment phase of the program is where the tools of a TC are tested to their fullest. The primary objectives of treatment are selfdiscipline and acceptance of authority by adhering to all general program rules and regulations, along with other rules that govern this phase. Through the use of program clinical tools, residents will continually identify negative behaviors and attitudes and begin the process of ridding themselves of such behaviors. Residents are encouraged to adopt a structured lifestyle, with emphasis on time management and resource allocation. Ultimately, when residents move on to another phase, or are paroled, they will continue using their “tools7’at home and in the recovery. When the aforementioned objectives are met, residents will move on to a re-entry phase where they will begin to plan and prepare for reintegration into their respective communities. In the re-entry phase residents focus on skills such as resume writing and job search skills, They will also focus on follow-up therapy that includes such areas as family and individual counseling and various other outpatient programs. Residents will also encounter the reality of dealing with impending relapse. Activities for the residents of the TC include several meetings held at various times throughout the day, each with their own specific purpose. Morning meetings are held to lift residents’ spirits and to begin their day on a positive note. Meetings can include song and dance, jokes, charades, poetry, current events, etc. Evening meetings are held to filter down information from staff to community, answer questions about program rules, and introduce new residents to the community. House meetings are held

to go over any family issues concerning school problems, security procedures, program
and over-all family behaviors. General meetings are held when residents have regressed to the point in treatment where they are close to being discharged from the program. Under supervision of the Counseling Staff, the resident population of the section to make a last concerted effort to encourage the residents considered for discharge to change their behaviors and/or attitudes. Other activities during treatment include seminars, workshops and groups. Seminars are held to broaden one‘s scope and horizons and can be on current events or any subject. Workshops are offered.to give residents instructions on life skills and

-

31

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

techniques that can be utilized in daily living. Topics may ‘include budgeting; investments; resume writing; education; parenting; among others. Finally, various groups are used to recognize and ventilate feelings and emotions in a positive atmosphere. They provide reinforcement and support from staff and residents. These groups can be encounter groups where residents can verbally confront behaviors; psychotherapy groups where staff leads residents in a safe and caring atmosphere to discuss problems and issues; and participation in group activities.

- Spectrum Behavioral Services, Resident Handbook
Qualitative Analysis of Treatment Facilities The Therapeutic Communities During the qualitative analysis of the therapeutic communities, researchers made one or two-day structured visits to each of the Department of Correction’s ten TCs. They interviewed staff, observed programs-in-progress, and monitored the day-to-day operations of each. This was
to be followed by a similar analysis of other parts of the “Continuum of Care” service

components durinp the remainder of the calendar year 2000. Once the qualitative analysis was completed, Research Team ff2 was to revisit each TC, or a sample of the TCs, and administer the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), for a more in-depth and quantitative analysis of that program. Research Team # 1 met several times with the regional director of Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and

DOC staff to set the ground rules for the evaluation visits to the TCs.

Generally, the conditions for the visits were acceptable to the researchers. However, a number of issues related to access to data (which CMS believed to be confidential) were never satisfactorily resolved between the researchers, the DOC,and CMS before the grants were terminated. Therefore, information vital for an effective evaluation, ex., the CMS contract with DOC,the inmate records during TC participation, inmate and staff turnover rates, etc., never became available.

32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Despite these unresolved issues, researchers made their first evaluation visit to the Garden State Correctional Facility early in February of 2000. By mid March the three therapeutic communities at Garden State had been visited a total of six times. All of the senior CMS staff
and DOC officers available during those visits were interviewed. Researchers also observed peer

group counseling sessions, encounter group sessions, and didactic training sessions. From midMarch through midJune, the seven other therapeutic communities in the state were visited by the research staff. Essentially the same qualitative evaluation activities were involved in each visit. The brief descriptive narrative of each of the TCs was developed from research field notes.

1. Garden State Prison TCs

There were three therapeutic communities operating in the Garden State Correctional Facility (Garden State) at the time this researcher made his visits. One of the TCs had bed space for I88 inmates, and the other two each had space for 160. Generally, Garden State is intended for inmates 26 years of age or under. On the first visit. the researcher met with the acting director of Garden State, the regional director of CMS and t\vo of the TC directors, who provided an overview of the prison’s residential substance abuse treatment program. During the course of this visit and five subsequent ones, the researcher was able to inspect all three of the TCs, interview staff members, sit in on
peer counseling sessions, didactic sessions, encounter groups, and interact with the inmates. At

the time of the first visit, early in February of 2000, two of the TCs were operated in conformity to the traditional CMS format described previously. The third was in the process of being reorganized from a Special Treatment, Intervention and Prevention Program (STIPP) for inmates

who had violated the “zero tolerance” program of the Department (ie., tested positive for drugs),
into a traditional therapeutic community. This new TC would eventually be called “No Return Unit 2” (NRU2). and mirror “No Return Unit I ” (NRUI), which was well organized and housed

33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

in an immediately adjacent area of‘%% f d i t y . Both of these TCs were fully segregated from the
general prison population. Inmates in the third TC, called “First Step,” or “West House,” shared some of the prison facilities with the general prison population, making security issues here a higher priority. As in all of the TCs, specially selected and trained DOC guards were assigned around the clock. Theirjob was to interact with the civilian TC directors, counselors and staff, to monitor traffic in and out of the TCs, and to assist in maintaining order when and where necessary. The staffing of the TCs is generally comprised of a director, 2 senior or supervisory counselors, and 4 or 6 counselors, depending on the size of the TC. Each counselor had a case

load of between 20 and 25 inmates; supervising counselors had a reduced case load due to their
additional duties. Each of the counselors is required to have a one-on-one counseling session with each of their charges at least hvice a month. At the time of the researchers’ visits, one of the directors was supervising both NRUl and NRU2, until a new director could be found for the new

TC.
Staff turnover seemed to be a major problem in the TCs. CMS appears to have a reasonable track record for promoting from within, which is evidenced by the employment longevity of directors and supervising counselors. Many of them had been with CMS for a number of years and had reached their current positions by climbing the organizational ladder.

CMS’ record with entry level counselors was not as impressive. Among the five counselors at one
Garden State TC, employment longevity was 2%years, 2 years, 3 months, 9 months and 3 months. Figures for the second TC were 2%years, 2% years, 2 years, 2 months, and one position was vacant as a result of a turnover. The final TC’s counselor employment figures were 4 months,
2 weeks, I year, 4 months, and 10 months.

34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Riverfront State Prison TC

The BRIDGE (“Beginning Recovery Involving Dedication, Gratitude and Effort”) therapeutic community program is housed at Riverfront State Correctional Facility in the City of Carnden. This TC houses 1 17 inmates, most of whom are 27 years of age or older. It shares facilities such as the mess hall, classroom space and recreation areas with inmates from the general population of the institution. As with the one facility at Garden State, this makes the
.

problem of maintaining security and monitoring of inmates a more immediate and ongoing problem. Additionally, it has visiting hours twice a week, which further complicates security issues. The Bridge has a dynamic director and an enthusiastic staff, who seem to interact well with the inmates under their supervision. According to the director, the orientation phase of the

TC program is the most important. It involves convincing inmates that the program is unique, that
they have been in other rehab situations before, and that this may be their last chance to secure a decent life. Since most clients are in their late twenties or thirties, they understand the situation.
As they become members of the community and accountable for other inmates’ conduct, they

gain status and prestige and become role models for other prisoners. The director reports that as they work their way through treatment and into the reentry phase, they tend to have a more disciplined approach to their addiction and realize, perhaps for the first time, that they will be in control of their future. The researcher sat in on a didactic session conducted by an addiction counselor with many years experience. A recovering alcoholic himself, he ran the session with great enthusiasm. It was easy to tell that the counselor had full comprehension of the process of recovery and relapse. Each of the inmates was attentive, and contributed to the session by presenting personal experiences as cases in point. Discussion with the staff revealed that counselor turnover was a serious factor affecting inmate success or failure. The researcher found employee retention problems similar to those

35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

reported at Garden State TC. Training for replacement personnel was inadequate and in many cases “on the job.” There was one counselor at this TC whose only credential was a high school diploma, and who was working to acquire a certificate as a Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselor (CADC).

3. Southern State Prison TC

The director of the “PIER Program” therapeutic community at Southern State Prison was a well-qualified individual who seemed to have been able to develop his staff into a wellcoordinated team. His staff looked to him for leadership and he felt comfortable about delegating authority to his subordinates. His main concern was that because salaries are so low ($25,000 to

$30,000), he is unable to get qualified counselors. When a counselor leaves, his or her case load
is distributed among the other staff. There was a 5-month delay in filling two recent staff

positions and he finally had to take someone he did not want because no one else was available. According to the director, since CMS began operations in New Jersey in April 1996, the turnover rate among counselors has been “huge.” This, he said, is true not only at Southern State, but at all

of the other TCs as well.
The inmates agreed to let the researcher sit in on a group counseling session lead by one

of the new counselors. He was a minister with no degrees and had been at the TC for only two
months. The counselor introduced the session’s theme of family responsibilie. and the inmates participated enthusiastically, relating how drugs and alcohol had affected their previous behavior and seriously impacted their personal relationships. Almost all of the twenty or so inmates spoke during the hour and twenty-minute session. The session ended abruptly as time ran out without the usual “wrap up” or “pulling together” of the most important parts of the discussion. A number

of inmates asked whether the researcher would report that the program be maintained. Most of
them felt that they were getting help from the program and hoped that it would be continued.

36

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women TC

The “Ackennan Program” at Edna Mahan Correctional Facility is the only New Jersey

DOC therapeutic community for women. The researcher met with the administrator of the facility
and the director of the TC on the first visit. During the course of this visit the researcher toured the TC and met with the staff. The program’s facility has 56 beds for severely addicted inmates. The administration of the TC is comprised of an all-female staff of a director, a senior or supervising counselor, and two counselors. Each of the counselors has a caseload of approximately 24, and the senior counselor approximately 10 to 12. The atmosphere is relaxed and almost campus-like, despite the DOC security presence at the entrance to the TC. Most inmates participate in the program for approximately a year. There is a two-month orientation phase, a six to seven month treatment component, and a one to 3 month transition phase, during which the inmates are prepared for release directly into a halfway house. The treatment program is basically the same as the other TCs. During a second visit the researcher was invited to sit in on a staff meeting to realign the ”structure board” (see previous illustration). The structure board is an inmate hierarchy that signifies status within the TC. Positions are awarded as promotions (or in some cases demotions) for demonstrating personal growth and for assuming leadership within the TC family. During the course of the meeting, the entire Ackerman TC staff discussed the progress (or lack thereof) of each inmate, and made decisions relative to their positions on the structure board. It was clear that
the staff was well informed of the strengths and weakness of their clients. Any disputed moves on

the board were negotiated with the director. The director of Ackerman is exceptionally well qualified for the position. She has a graduate degree and is a certified drug counselor who has worked with addicts and the mentally iff for many years. The senior counselor and one of the counselors are college graduates and the other counselor is working on an associates degree. Before the current director was hired, the TC

37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

was without one for over six months; the senior counselor was acting director. The senior counselor has been Lvitli ChlS for 21/2 years. One counselor has been employed for 11/2 years and the other for 9 months.

5. South Woods State Prison TCs

South Woods State Prison’s “NuWay Program” is comprised of four therapeutic communities, with combined space to accommodate approximately 448 inmates. South Woods’

first TC became operational in 1997 and the last was fully operational by January of 1999. The
researcher met with the hvo directors and four of the senior counselors, all of whom had over 2 years work experience at South Woods. The turnover rate among counselors once again was indicated to be a serious problem. At the time of the visit there was only one counselor vacancy among the four TCs. However, in two of them, 8 out of 13 counselors had less than one year at the facility, and in another, 5 out of 12 had less than a year. The researcher was informed that the turnover rate among the inmates, which had for some time been high (25%), had recently been reduced to about 10%. The researcher’s general impressions included the fact that the physical space allocated to the TCs was more prison-like than any of the other therapeutic communities visited. There seemed to be more of a DOC presence, and a greater emphasis on security and less on the development of a commiinity or family support environment. The office and counseling areas for the TC staff were less than adequate for the rehabilitative task that was expected. Quite frankly, the TC area, with room for over 425 beds, seemed too large, and some of the beds in the TCs were utilized to house non-TC inmates. The inmates were provided with a full schedule of activities, as in the other TCs. This schedule included: didactic morning meetings (8am to 1 lam); lunch and a lock down ( 1 1am to I pm); peer counseling, encounter group sessions and AA and

38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NA sessions ( I to 3:45pm); dinner and lockdown (4 to 5:30pm), followed by an evening meeting,
recreation, and a meeting of department heads before final lock down at 7:30pm.

Pre-Release Inmate Assessment Centers
The ‘Continuum of Care” process of the New Jersey Department of Corrections provides that inmate assessments be made 60 to 90 days prior to release to a community corrections program. Community corrections programs include halfway houses, community treatment facilities and a variety of parole supervision programs. Currently, there are two assessment centers in the New Jersey correctional system, both run by Community Education Centers (CEC), a private vendor: Talbot Hall in Kearny, and the Albert M. “Bo” Robinson Education and Training Center in Trenton. The Assessment Centers are designed to serve all pre-release inmates, which means that at any given time a portion of the residents are individuals who have completed a therapeutic community program at one of the ten TCs located throughout the state. The objective of these assessment centers is to provide a comprehensive inmate profile prior to release in order to:

I ) determine the participant’s risk of recidivism,
2) assess the criminogenic needs that will be addressed in the program,

3) define responsivity characteristics, i.e. determine the types of treatment to which the
participant is likely to respond, and
4 ) evaluate the magnitude and duration of any alcohol or substance abuse problem.

According to CEC, “All participants complete a battery of assessments that provide insight into specific rehabilitation needs. Areas assessed include academic, vocational and employability factors, as well as substance abuse relapse probability and risk of recidivism”

(CEC, 2000). The assessment process is ongoing while the participant works his way through the
60 to 90 day program and develops a personal plan for rehabilitative success upon release to

community corrections.

39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

1. Talbot Hall

Talbot Hall opened in 1997 to provide assessment, rehabilitation services, and life-skills training services to DOC inmates 60 to 90 days prior to release to community correctional facilities. The researcher visited the facility in late September of 2000 and met with the director and two deputy directors to discuss the operations of the assessment process. During a tour it was clear that the extensively renovated facility incorporated all of the features necessary to carry out its goals. One of the major differences between Talbot Hall and the therapeutic communities is that it is an independently operated entity, separate and apart from any DOC detention facility. DOC presence is minimal; several internal affairs officers were present, but no uniformed members of the DOC were evident. Inmates are housed in one of three units. Each unit has a manager, 2 unit supervisors, 6 to
9 senior counselors, and 5 counselors. The living quarters resemble college dorms with neatly

made up bunk beds, writing spaces, and places to store personal items. There seems to be adequate classroom space, as well as areas for plenary sessions for the units, computer labs, and large recreation and dining areas. Every aspect of the facility seemed to be well-organized and well run. The directors indicated that Talbot Hall accommodates over 2000 inmates a year. The facility takes high-risk inmates, some of whom have the potential for violent recidivism or serious criminal acts. Assessors at both Talbot Hall and Bo Robinson use a process called “convergent validity,” which incorporates assessments from a number of vector points, measured by multiple questionnaire administrations and one-on-one counseling sessions. The Department of Corrections makes the release decision at a reclassification hearing based on the inmate’s assessment. Inmates who are judged to be “Very High Risk” are returned to prison to serve additional time. For some, “HalfLvay House/Substance Abuse Treatment” is recommended, which requires that the inmate receive additional substance abuse treatment at a halfway house before worWschool release. inmates recommended for “Traditional Halfway House” are placed in a live-

40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

in environment with release during the day for work or school, some treatment sessions, and
weekend furloughs.

2. Albert M. “Bo” Robinson Education and Training Center

This center, completely renovated for its current use as an assessment center, opened in
1997. It can hold up to 320 residents with full-minimum status; however, at the time of the

researcher’s visit in October of 2000, it had only 309. At that time the administrators of the facility were considering moving to a modified therapeutic community model, which would incorporate didactic sessions, small group counseling, and relapse prevention strategy sessions in addition to their own current testing and diagnostic programs.
As with Talbot Hall, the facility seemed to be well-organized and well run. On the inside,

facilities for the inmates replicated those of Talbot Hall; however, the exterior of ‘‘Bo” Robinson resembles a DOC facility. The center provides counseling and life-skills training, and workrelease programs for residents who have achieved their treatment goals.

41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

...

.

PART 111:

DATA ANALYSIS AND CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (CPAI) ADMINISTRATION
As was indicated earlier, the Process Evaluation tasks were divided between the two Co-

Principal Investigators and their research assistants. Research Team # 1, directed by Dr. Robert
Mc Cormack, conducted the qualitative systems analysis, which has been discussed up to this

point. Simultaneously, Dr Mario Paparoui and Research Team #2 were working with DOC staff
to establish the experimental and control groups of inmates who had participated

in the RSAT

program during calendar year 1998. This data, a snapshot profile of inmate demographics, would become the foundation of an inmate tracking system, following inmates’ progress through the continuum of care process, and eventually, in the Outcome Evaluation, determining the effectiveness of the various components of the continuum and their impact on inmate recidivism. Research Team #2 was also preparing to conduct the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) and, during the latter part of the Process Evaluation, to interview participants in the program relative to the RSAT program’s ability to strengthen family and community bonds.
INMATE COHORT DATA: 1998

A number of DOC staff assigned as liaison and resource personnel to the researchers had been involved in the residential substance abuse treatment programs for some time. The original

DOC Project Director had been directing RSAT programs for over ten years and, in fact, had
been the originator of many of them. Other DOC staff members were assigned to the RSAT evaluation upon project funding, and were not as familiar with many of the program’s intricacies as the project director. The initial cohort data was generated shortly after the project began in October of 1999 by a combined group of DOC staff and Team #2 researchers. The group was to draw data related to all of the 1998 inmates who had been administered an Addiction Severity index (ASI) questionnaire and had been determined to be in need of intensive drug treatment. Within this cohort there were nvo inmate subgroups in which the researchers had an interest. The
42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.. ..

.

first subgroup of inmates were those assigned to one of the existing therapeutic cnmmunities
(TCs); the second group was comprised of inmates with comparable AS1 scores who had not been

assigned to TCs. Inmates in this second subgroup were assigned instead to the general population for administrative reasons, such as not being eligible for minimum custody; having detainers on file; having received poor psychological evaluations; having been committed for a sex offense,
etc. Researchers were to select an appropriate random sample from the first subgroup to serve as

the experimental cadre, and a similar sample from the second subgroup to use as the comparison group. For some unexplained reason inmates who scored 6 or above on the AS1 instrument were erroneously used to form the large research cohort from which the two subgroups were to be identified. This despite the fact that according to standard DOC practice for many years, inmates with scores of 5 or above on the AS1 instrument were determined to be in need of intensive drug treatment and therefore eligible for placement in TCs. An early report from Research Team #2 attests to the confusion. The sampling frame is all inmates assessed on the Addiction Severity Index
(ASI) at six or above during calendar year 1998 (?+3,300). We initially indicated that a

score of five or above would serve as the cut off point for sample selection. However, as a result of work conducted during the process evaluation, we learned that the department of corrections uses a score of six or above as a mandatory referral for an RSAT (TC) program. Lower AS1 scores may or may not result in a referral. - Paparoui, October 1999 It is not clear who dissuaded the researchers from using the score of 5 or above as the TC referral criterion, or how the sampling error was made. We believe however, that since the sample was drawn by DOC staff who should have known the protocol for the DOC’s therapeutic community selection, the mistake should have been noted immediately and corrected before the sample was drawn. As it was the researchers spent weeks analyzing the flawed database before discovering the sampling error. Additional problems with the data analysis occurred as a result of the discovery that the

DOC’s information management system did not contain much of the data need to effectively

43

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

accomplish project goals as indicated above. The following data collection overview report was submitted by Research Team #2 early in 2000. The information provided to the researchers by the NJDOC liaison was initially incomplete (several fields contained no information). This missing data presented a problem for the implementation of the proposed research design. A second attempt to obtain the missing data was confounded because the first round of information provided in response to the request for more complete data included inmates from calendar years I998 and 1999 (we needed to limit our research to 1998 only). A more significant problem was detected relative to the fact that so many of the mmates assessed in calendar year 1998, who were made part of the sample based on their AS1 scores, were reassessed in 1999. Some of the reassessments produced different AS1 scores that made those inmates ineligible for inclusion in the sample. We feel that much more work will need to be done before an appropriate study population can be finalized. Our concerns are based upon our initial findings that revealed the following: a. Manual file review is needed in order to clarify assessment scores, assessor names, actual assignment to an RSAT program, and other missing and/or ambiguous data. b. The rate of attrition in the RSAT programs may be higher than expected. If this proves to be the case, in fact, there will be a need to again increase the sample size quite considerably. At this point, we are accepting the study population as more of an exploratory rather than a final sample selection. In the months ahead, efforts will be made to sort and clean the data in order to assure stable experimental and comparison groups as well as a sufficiently large sample size. - Paparozzi, March 2000 With respect to the attrition rate in TCs (noted in b. above), the DOC’S own estimate of program attrition, previously cited, placed that figure at approximately 80%. Only about 1200 out of the 6000 inmates assigned to TCs since I990 completed the program. Roughly, 40% are given “unfavorable terminations,” 40% leave for treatment, parole or other administrative reasons, and approximately 20% complete the program. The figures for the researcher’s target

year of 1998 were 316 completions (State ofNJ DOC 12/22/99 document).
It became clear to the researchers that a different information management system had to be developed in order to track the treatment progress of inmates in the experimental and comparison groups as they moved through the correctional process. In the DOC information

44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

system these data were contained in myriad files, some kept by the DOC and others by the private service providers hired for various parts of the continuum of care process. Each of these data sets would have to be hand-searched presenting a daunting task for the researchers. This fact, and the early discovery that the AS1 questionnaire was not capable of objectively differentiating between
1

inmate scores of 4 , s or 6, (or any objective score for that matter), caused the researchers to consider presenting the DOC and NIJ with an alternative methodology for the evaluation, (See page 47.)

ADMINISTRATION OF T H E CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT IKVENTORY
(CPAI)

A key method of assessing correctional treatment programs is through the use of the

Correctional Program Assessment Inventory, or CPAI, an evaluative tool developed by Drs. Paul Gendreau and Don Adams. Through structured interviews with selected program staff, this extensive questionnaire seeks responses to 76 primary questions and many supplementary questions in an effort to fully examine and determine the degree to which the correctional program follows principles associated with other successful programs within the following six areas of correctional programs:
1.

The program implementation, specifically as a function of the influence, involvement and qualifications of the program’s leadership

2.

The process by which, and the manner in which, client assessments are conducted; The program characteristics, including the types of treatments used and the ability of the program to target criminogenic behaviors;

3.

4.

The education, experience, involvement and training of staff; The methods of feedback and evaluation currently in use in the program;

5.

45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.... .

6.

And a number of “other” related considerations, such as the stability of program funding, advisory board involvement, community support, and the adherence to ethical guidelines.

Ultimately the inventory identifies the strengths of the program, the areas that need improvement, and makes recommendations for each of the six program areas evaluated. Research Team ti2 was charged with responsibility for administering the CPAI in the

TCs and select segments of the Continuum of Care treatment facilities. At a March 2000 meeting
of DOC staff and the researchers, the prospect of starting the administration of the CPAI
questionnaires in various components of the continuum of care was discussed [by this time the

DOC had replaced its original project director with a higher-level middle management
supervisor]. This extensive questionnaire would require several days to administer, and would require information that CMS had previously indicated was confidential. The new project director introduced a more current TC assessment instrument called the Scale of Essential Elements Questionnaire (SEEQ) developed by Melnick, De Leon and Bernhardt. The DOC project director indicated that she had been in touch with the authors but it was not clear at that time what use, if any, would be made of the SEEQ material. The issue of commencing the administration of the CPAI questionnaires was not resol\.ed at this meeting. Less than a week later, it was learned that the DOC project director had hired the Center for Therapeutic Community Research (the owners of the SEEQ materials) to train DOC personnel to conduct an independent study of the therapeutic communities at the same time the researchers were engaged in the NIJ evaluation. Given this surprising circumstance, the researchers decided to defer administering the CPAI in the TCs while the DOC SEEQ project \vas underway, and to begin administering the CPAI in the back end of the continuum of care, i.e. the assessment centers, halfway houses and community treatment components. The project director indicated that approval was required from a higher level DOC administrator before the CPAI administration in the facilities could commence, and promised to seek it. Approval was delayed for six months until October 2000.

46

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-..

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY

in light of the difficulties previously reported in connection with the AS1 instrument and
the DOC’S management information system, the researchers felt that a new methodological approach to the evaluations was indicated. In July 2000, the new methodology was suggested to

both the DOC and NIJ project monitor. It was based on adopting a more scientific assessment

instrument for addiction severity, drawing two new experimental and comparison groups and establishing a “real time” tracking system for monitoring inmate progress through the continuum

of care protocol. T h e following is the draft of this proposal.
If the New Jcrse} DOC adopts a new addiction severity measurement instrument and trains its AS1 technicians to utilize it by September 1, 2000*, approximately 4000 inmates** will be processed through Classification by the end of the year having been tested with new instrument.
Approximately 60% should test over the new standard for assignment to a Therapeutic Community (TC) (based on current DOC statistics, see Inmate Profile Reports) or approx. 2400 inmates. Approximately 50% of these will not be eligible for TCs because of: 1. Time factors: parole eligibility too close or too far away. 2. No minimum-security status. 3. Seriousness of charges. 4. Detainers. 5. Sex offender status. 6. Arsonist. 7. Illegal Alien status. 8. Referred for further psychological evaluation. By January 1,2001 two samples (500 each) will be selected as experimental and comparison groups based on their institutional assignments. The experimental group will be tracked through the RSAT, the remainder of the Continuum of Care process, until the end of the grant (March 3 1, 2002). The researchers will be able to monitor their progress for 15 months. The comparison group will be similarly monitored during their confinement and whiie on parole. Ifthe Outcome Evaluation Grant is extended by nine months until December 3 1,2002, the monitoring of the two groups will last for 24 months. Obviously, the longer the grant is extended the more credible the outcomes. Advantages: 1. The researchers will be able to construct a special management information system to accurately control the monitoring of both inmate groups. 2. There will be time to settle outstanding issues with CMS relative to privacy issues. 3. This new methodology can probably be implemented without any increase in funding.

* This may be a difficult time line to achieve. If the new AS1 form is not implemented until
10/1/00, there will be 1000 less inmates in the selection pool.

** Classification takes place four times a week and approsimately 250 inmates are processed, or
1000/month. In four months, approximately 4000 inmates will have gone through the process. McCormack, July 2000

-

47

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..

.

In addition, the researchers suggested that the data generated by the DOC’S own
evaluation ofthe TCs, using the Scale of Essential Elements Questionnaire (SEEQ), be used in place of those that would have been generated via the CPAI administration. The SEEQ material developed by Melnick, De Leon and Bernhardt was as comprehensive as the CPAI. The DOC did not accept the proposal and was not agreeable to any modification of the original methodology.

48
--*
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PART IV: THE DOC DECISION TO END GRANTS AND DISCUSSION

The Doc Decision to End Grants
At the end of October of 2000, one of the Co-PIS, Dr. Mario Paparoui, became k candidate in a search for a new Chairman of the New Jersey Parole Board. As soon as the Center's research staff became aware of that fact, a search began for Dr. Paparozzi's replacement in the event that he would be selected for the position. Dr. Paparoui was eventually chosen for the position in early in November and the DOC contacted NIJ and indicated that they wanted to

close down both grants by December 3 1 , 2000. The reason given was that it would be difficult to
replace Dr. Paparoui because of his extensive experience in corrections and that in his absence

no one capable of conducting the CPAI evaluations would be available. The researchers
immediately notified NIJ that they had several outstanding candidates to replace Dr. Paparoui, and that the staff was in contact with Dr. Paul Gendreau, the developer of the CPAI instrument, to determine the plausibility of making other arrangements for CPAI administration. The grant administrator at NIJ was very receptive to both suggestions, and indicated that it was quite common for a Co-PI to leave a grant and be replaced by another. However, at a subsequent meeting with the DOC project director and staff, it became evident that they were not agreeable
to either of the suggestions and were determined to cancel both the Process and Outcome

Evaluation grants, effective December 3 1 ,2000. At the urging of the NIJ grant administrator the DOC agreed to allow the Process Evaluation grant to continue through March 3 1,2001 so that a final report could be prepared. The Outcome Evaluation ended on December 3 1,2000.

Discussion
In retrospect, it is evident that the NJDOC was not prepared for an evaluation of their RSAT programs. After spending almost a year and a half observing the programs, it is the

49

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

researcher’s opinion that executive level administrators at the NJDOC were not closely monitoring the day-to-day operations of the RSAT programs. This is not unusual in large bureaucracies where vertical communications problems often exist. Lack of communications is common, particularly in specialized treatment operations outside of the normal chain of command. Correction administrators’ major concerns are custodial. The fact that the NJDOC’s RSAT programs had been in effect for over ten years with little notoriety seems to have resulted in a reduced concern for extensive oversight. Responsibility for the programs‘ operations had been delegated to a small group of mid-level managers who, ostensibly, were achieving the program’s goals of selecting, processing, treating and eventually releasing “rehabilitated” former drug-addicted inmates to the community. On closer inspection, the researchers found that the RSAT programs had in fact been developed on a shaky foundation and had deficiencies that needed to be corrected. Perhaps the
most serious and enduring problem was perpetuating the notion that the abbreviated form of the

Addiction Severity Index (ASJ) instrument was capable of objectively distinguishing between the various levels of inmate addiction. In many cases, use of this instrument resulted in the inaccurate assignment of inmates to TCs or to less intense treatment programs in the general correctional population. In fairness, it should be pointed out that there are few, if any, validated assessment instruments available. The researchers recommended the Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) to the DOC project director as an alternative to the ASI. Although still in the process of validation, TCUDS is the primary screening instrument of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As previously noted, twelve other states have recently adopted or are considering adopting it. It includes a nine point, scorable questionnaire that discriminates between relatively severe drug related problems and those that are less severe (Institute of Behavioral Health, 1998). The flaws connected with the AS1 administration were brought to the attention of DOC administrators
by the researchers in early 2000 (it is difficult to believe they were not apparent before that). The

50

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

account for the high rate of attrition among TC inmates and determine the relapse and recidivism rates of those who complete the program. After more than a decade, the answers to these important questions elude them.

This Process Evaluation of the residential substance abuse treatment programs can be
viewed as a timited success, at least in that it has resulted in an ongoing self-evaluation of those programs by the Department. The NJ DOC has been in the vanguard among states in terms of recognizing the importance of drug and alcohol treatment programs for inmates. They have made significant progress in this area and, therefore, should have been more willing to openly share both the programs’ originality and limitations so that other states could benefit from their experiences.

52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

....

.

End Notes Anti Drug-AbirJe Act of 1986, Public Law #570 (1986). 99'" Congress, 2"dSession. Beck, A. (2000) (April). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Brown, B.S. (1992). Program models. In C.G. Leukefeld & F.M.Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons andjails (pp.3 1-37). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Bugliosi, V. (1996). The Phoenix Solution. Beverly Hills, CA: Dove Books. Community Education Centers. Services. (2000). Roseland, New Jersey Currie, E. (1 993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities, and the American future. New York: Hill and Wang. DeLeon, G. (1986) The therapeutic community for substance abuse: Perspective and approach. In McNeece, C.A., Bullington, B., Mayfield, E. & Springer, D.W. (1999). The war on drugs: Treatment, research and substance abuse intervention in the twenty-first century. In R. Muraskin & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime andjustice in the hvenly-first century (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. De Leon, G., and Melnick, G.(1993). Therapeutic community scale of essential elements questionnaire (SEEQ).New York City:Community Studies Institute, 2 World Trade Center, 16IhFloor, 10048. Duke, S. and A. Gross. (1993). America's longest war. New York: Putnam. Gendreau, P. ( I 996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options thnt work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gerstein, D. R. & H. J. Harwood (Eds.). (1990). Treating drzrgproblems (Vo1.1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Gonzalez, F. (1212 1/99). Personal interview with researcher. Harrison, L., & Gfroerer, J. (1997). The intersection of drug use and criminal behavior from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. In B.W. Hancock, & P.M. Sharp (Eds.), Public policy, crime and criminaljzrstice (p. 95-1 13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hail. Hubbard, R. L., M.E. Marsden, M.E. Rachal, H.T. Harwood, E. R. Kavanagh, & H.M. Ginsberg. (1998). Drug abuse treatment: A national study of effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Innes, C. C. ( I 988). Profile o state prison inntutes, f986: Special report. Washington, DC: U.S. f Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Institute of Behavioral Health. (1 998) (Summer). Research Roundup [On-line serial], volume (8:2). Available FTP: Hostname: WIVH .ibr.tcu.edu Leukefield, C.G., & F. M. Tims. (1 993) Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails. Jozrrnal o Substance f Abuse Treatment, 10: 77-84. Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mostella (Eds.), Meto-annlysisfor explanation (pp. 83-1 27). New York: Russell Sage. Lipton, D.S., G.P. Falkin, & H. K. Wexler (1992). Correctional drug abuse treatment in the United Tims (Eds.), Drug treatment in prisons and States: An overview. In C.G. Leukefeld and F.M. jails (pp. 8-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Lipton, D.S., Sabin, E.P., Teichman, M. et al. (1998). Drug and alcohol abuse treatment. Journal o f Offender Rehabilitation, 26 (3f4): 1-45. Lipton, D.S. (1 995). The eflectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision (National Institute of Justice Research Report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Mansnerus, L. (1 999). As crime rate drops, the prison rate rises and the debate rages: Stiffer sentences for serious, and lesser crimes, ninke New Jersey one of the tougher states. New York Times, New Jersey, section 14, p.1, December 26.

53
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

McCormack, R.J. (July 2000).Alternative Methodolog): Unpublished memo. The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey. McNeece, C.A., Bullington, B., Mayfield, E. & Springer, D.W. (1999). The war on drugs: Treatment, research and substance abuse intervention in the twenty-first century. In R. Muraskin & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change; Crime andjustice in the twenty-$rsf century (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McShane, M.D. & Krause, W. (1993). Community corrections. MacMillin Publishing Co. Mumola, C.J. (1 999) (January). Substance abuse and treatment, State and Federalprisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Myers, M.G., Stewart, D. G., & Brown, S.A. (1998).Understanding drug abuse and addiction. American Journal OfPsychiatry, 155(4),pp. 479-485. Republished on-line by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health, May, 1998. Nadelman, E. (1 988). US Drug Policy: A bad export. Foreign Policy:70:83-108. Palmer, T. ( 1996). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention. In A.T. Halland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Dejning the demand and evaluating the suppk (pp. 13 1- 182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pan, H., F.R. Scarpitti, J.A. Inciardi, and D. Lockwood (1 993). Some considerations on therapeutic communities in corrections. In McNeece, C.A., Bullington, B., Mayfield, E. & Springer, D.W. ( 1 999). The war on drugs: Treatment, research and substance abuse intervention in the twentyfirst century. In R. Muraskin & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime andjustice in the twen@-frst century (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paparoui, M. (March 2000). Data collection overview. Unpublished in-house document. The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey. Paparoui, M. (October 1999). Untitled. Unpublished in-house memo. The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey. Rouse, J. J. (1 99 1). Evaluation research on prison-based drug treatment programs and some policy implications. International Journal o Addictions, 26( 1): 29-44. f Spectrum Behavioral Services. Substance abuse treatment, state o New Jersey: Resident hand book, f therapeutic community treatment programs. State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. ASI Assessment Interview Procedure Paper, 4A:1.2. (Revised 9/13/99) State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. CRAF Adminisrrative Policy and Procedure Paper, 4B:4.l. (Effective 9/1/98;Revised 9/21/99.) State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. Prison-based TC Program Graduates as o 12/22/99. f State o f New Jersey Department of Corrections. Projile o Male Oflender Statistical Analysis, 1999. f Tesoriero, J. M. &. La-Chance McCullough, M.L. I 999). Correctional health-care now and into the ( twenty-first century. In R. Muraskin & A. R., Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime and justice in the twenty-first century (2""Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. University of Pennsylvania, Addiction Severity Index: A Guide to Training and Supervising ASI Interviews Based on the Past Ten Years, 5'h Edition, Furman, B., G. Parikh, A.Bragg, and A. T. McLellan (eds). Veterans Administration Center for Studies of Addiction. Wexler. H. K. (1 994). Progress in prison substance abuse treatment: A five year report. Journal o Drug f Issues, 24(2):349-360. Wexler, H. K . & Williams, R. (1986).The Stay'n Out therapeutic community: Prison treatment for substance abusers. Journal o Psychoactive Drugs, 180):22 1-230. f Wexler, H. K., Lipton, D.S. & Johnson, B.D. (1988). A criminal justice system strategy for treating cocaine-heroin abusing oflenders in custody: Issues and practices in criminaljustice. P C J 1085601 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wish, E.D., Brady, E. & Cuadrado, M. (1 984). Drug use and crime arrests in Manhattan. Presentation at the 471hMeeting of the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependency. New York: Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.

54

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bibliography
Amoureaus, M.P.S.R., van den Hurk, A.A., Schippers, G.M., & Breteler, M.H.M. (1994). The Addiction Severity Index in penitentiaries. International Journal of Offender Therapy 54: and Comparative Criminology, 3 ( ) 309-3 18. Andrews, D. & J. Bonta (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing.

Anti Drug-Abuse Act o 1986, Public Law #570 (1 986). 9gth f Congress, 2”dSession.
Austin, J. ( 1998). The limits of prison drug treatment. Corrections Managentenf Qzlorterly,

2(4): 66-74.
Beck, A. (April 2000). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bullelin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Brown, B.S. (1992). Program models. In C.G. Leukefeld & F.M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons undjails (pp.3 1-37). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Bugliosi, V. (1996). The Phoenix Solution. Beverly Hill, CA: Dove Books. Bureau of Planning and Evaluation. (1995). Formative evaluation of Correcrional Medical Services ’ Psychiatric Residential Treatment Unit at Trumbull Correctional Institution. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Chenault, P. ( 1975). Diagnostic techniques in classification and treatment. In L. J. Hippchen (Ed.), Correctional classification and treatment: A reader. Cincinnati, Ohio: The Anderson Publishing Company.

Conimirnity Education Centers. Services. (2000). Roseland, New Jersey
Correctional Medical Services. Resident hand book: therapeutic comniunity treatment programs. Conectional Medical Services. “Choosethe Firm That s Dedicated to Making a Diference. ” \vwu .cmsstl.coni/services.litml September 2000). (21 Currie, E. (1 993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities, and the American future. New York: Hill and Wang. DeLeon, G.,& Melnick, G. (1993). Therapeutic community scale of essential elements questionnaire (SEEQ). New York City: Community Studies Institute, 2 World Trade Center, 1 6‘hFloor, 10048.

Doll, W.H. (Ed.). (1933). Handbook of casework and classification method for offenders. Vineland, New Jersey: American Correctional Association.
Duke, S. and A. Gross. (1993). America’s longest war. New York: Putnam.

55

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Earley, K.E.(Ed.). (1993). Drug treatment behind bars: Prison-based strategiesfor change. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Press. Eisenberg, M., & Reed, M. ( 1997). Implementation and cost-eflectivenessofthe correctional substance abuse treatment initiative. Austin, T X : Criminal Justice Policy Council. Field, G. (1989) (December). The effects of intensive treatment on reducing the criminal recidivism of addicted offenders. Federal Probation, p.5 1-56. Field, G. (1985). The Cornerstone Program: a client outcome study. Federal Probation, 50-55. Gendreau, P. ( 1 996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the suppZy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gerstein, D. R. & H. J. Hanvood (Eds.). (1 990). Treating drugproblems (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Harrison, L., & Gfroerer, J. (1997). The intersection of drug use and criminal behavior from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. In B.W. Hancock, & P.M. Sharp (Eds.), Public policy, crime and criniinaljustice (p. 95-1 13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D.D. (1999). Prison-based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare, and recidivism. Addiction, 93(6):833-842. Hippchen, L.T. (Ed.). (1 975). Correciional classzjkation and treatment:A reader. Cincinnati, Ohio: The W.H. Anderson Company. Hubbard, R. L., M.E. Marsden, M.E. Rachal, H.T. Harwood, E. R. Kavanagh, 8: H.M. Ginsberg. (1998). Drug abuse treatment:A national study o efectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: f University of North Carolina Press. inciardi, J.A., Martin, S.S.,Butzin, C.A., Hooper, C.A., & Harrison, L.D. 1997. An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, Spring. Innes, C. C. (1988). Profile of state prison inmates, 1986: Special report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Institute of Behavioral Health. (1 998) (Summer). Research Roundup [On-line serial], volume (8:2). Available FTP: Hostname: www.ibr.tcu.edu . www.ibr.tcu.edu/~ubs/newslet/98summer.html. Leukefeld, C.G., & Tims, F.M.(Eds.) (1992). Drug abuse treatment in prisons andjails (NIDA Research Monograph 1 18). Rockville, MD: U.S.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Leukefield, C.G., & F. M. Tims. (1993) Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 10: 77-84.

56
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Linhorst, D.M. 2000. Final report of a process evaluation of the OZARK Correctional Center Drug Treatment Program. St. Louis, Mi: Saint Louis University, School of Social Service. Lipsey, M. (1 992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mostella (Eds.), Meta-analysisfor explanation (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage. Lipton, D.S., Sabin, E.P., Teichman, M. et al. (1998). Drug and alcohol abuse treatment. Journal o Oflender Rehabilitation, 26 (314): 1-45. f Lipton, D.S. ( 1995). The efectiveness o treatment for drug abusers irnder criminaljustice f supervision (National Institute of Justice Research Report). Washington, DC: National lnstitute of Justice. Lipton, D.S., G.P. Falkin, & H. K. Wexler (1992). Correctional drug abuse treatment in the United States: An overview. In C.G. Leukefeld and F.M. Tims (Eds.), Drug treatment in prisons ondjails (pp. 8-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Mansnerus, L. (1 999). As crime rate drops, the prison rate rises and the debate rages: Stifleer f sentences for serious, and lesser crimes, make New Jersey one o the tozrgher states. New York Times, New Jersey, section 14, p. 1, December 26. McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., O'Brien, C.P., Barr, H.L., & Evans, F. (1986). Alcohol and drug abuse in three different populations: Is it predictable? American Journal o Drug and f Alcohol Abuse, 12:lOl-120. McNeece, C.A., Bullington, B., Mayfield, E. & Springer, D.W. (1999). The war on drugs: Treatment, research and substance abuse intervention in the twenty-first century. In R. Muraskin & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime andjustice in the hvenly3 r s f century (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McShane, M.D. & Krause, W. 1993. Coiiimuniry corrections. MacMillin Publishing Co. Murnola, C.J. (January 1999). Substance abuse and treatment, State and Federalprisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Myers, M.G., Stewart, D. G., & Brown, S.A. (1998). Understanding drug abuse and addiction. American Joirrnal o Psychiatry, 155(4), pp. 479-485. Republished on-line by the f National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health, May, 1998. Nadefman, E. (1988). US Drug Policy: A bad export. Foreign Policy:70:83-108. Nash, J.E. 1999. Final report of outcomes for the OZARK Correctional Center Drug Treatment Program. Springfield, MI: Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research and Southwest Missouri State University.

57

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Latest criminal behavior and drug use dramatically reduced by drug treatment beginning in prison. National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information Press Release. 2000. http://~~u~.healtli.ore:80/uressrel/iuly97/7.htm (1 0 July 2000).
”

National Institute of Justice. (1 998) (February). Solicitntion: Local Evalirations of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatmentfor State Prisoners Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. National Task Force on Correctional Substance Strategies. ( 199I). Intervening with substance abusing oflenders: A pamework for action. Washington, DC: U.S. Depanment of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Nielson, A.L., Scarpini, F.R., & Inciardi, J.A. (1996). Integrating the therapeutic community and f work release for drug-involved offenders: the CREST Program. Jozrrnal o Substance Abuse Treatment, 13(4): 349-358.

Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1998). Services Research Outcome Study (SROS). Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of National Drug Council Policy. (1 990). National drug control srraregy. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Pan, H., F.R. Scarpitti, J.A. Inciardi, and D. Lockwood (1993). Some considerations on therapeutic communities in corrections. In McNeece, C.A., Bullington, B., Mayfield, E. & Springer, D.W. ( 1999). The war on drugs: Treatment, research and substance abuse intervention in the twentyfirst century. In R. Muraskin & A. R. Robens (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime andjustice in rhe fwenty-first century (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paparoui, M. (March 2000). Data collection overview. Unpublished in-house document. The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey. Paparozzi, M. (October 1999). Untitled. Unpublished in-house memo. The Criminal Justice Center of The College of New Jersey. Palmer, T. ( 1996). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention. In A.T. Haliand (Ed.),’ Choosing correctional options that work: Defming the demand and evaluating the suppt’y (pp. 13 1-1 82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phipps, P., Korinek, K., Aos, S., & Lieb, R. (1999). Researchfindings on adult corrections’ programs: A review. Oympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Rohter, L. and C.S.Wren. ( 1999). US.to consider SI billion more for Colirmbian drug war. New York Times, International, July 17, p. A-7. Rouse, J. J. (1 99 1). Evaluation research on prison-based drug treatment programs and some policy implications. International Journal o Addictions, 26( 1): 29-44. f Sharp, E. P. ( 1975). Forward, p.xi. In L. J Hippchen, (Ed.). Correctional clnssiJcation and treotment: A reader. Cincinnati, Ohio: The W.H. Anderson Company.

58

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Spectrum Behavioral Services. Substance abuse treatment, slate ofNew Jersey: Resident hand book, therapeutic community treatment programs. Spectrum Behavioral Services. Drug treatment in prison: Training manual therapeutic comntuniry model. Spiegler, M. & Guevremont, D. (1993). Contemporary behavioral therapy (2ndEdition). Brooks/Cole. State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. ASI Assessmenl Interview Procedure Paper, #A:1.2. (Revised 9/13/99) State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. CRA F Administrative Policy and Procedure Paper, IB:4.1. (Effective 9/1/98; Revised 912 1/99.) State of New Jersey Depanment of Corrections. Prison-based TC Program Graduures as of 12/22/99. State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. Substance abuse testing, sanctioning and treatment interventionsfor inmates andparolees. (February 1998) Tesoriero, J. M. &. La-Chance McCullough, M.L. (1999). Correctional health-care now and into the twenty-first century. In R. Muraskin & A. R., Roberts (Eds.), Visionsfor change: Crime andjirstice in the twenty-fjrst century (2""Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Texas Christian University Web page at wwv.ibr.tcu.edu. Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA) Criminal Justice Committee. (1999) (Dec.). Therapeutic communities in correctional settings: the Prison Based TC Standards 1 Development Project, final report ofphase 1 (Prepared for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], document number NCJI79365). Washington, DC: White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Available at http://ww\v.u hitehousedrunpolicv.gov OR from the National Drug Clearinghouse, 1-800666-3 332. University of Pennsylvania, Addiction Severity Index: A Guide to Training and Supervising AS1 lntervien~s Busedon the Past Ten Years, 5Ih Edition, Furman, B., G. Parikh, A.Bragg, and A. T. McLellan (eds). Veterans Administration Center for Studies of Addiction.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. "National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (AWES). (1 0 July
"

2000). w\l..w.health.ol.p/nties97/intro.htm

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin (August 1995) U.S. Depanment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletinl, (Azrgust 1996).
..

59
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Vigdal, G. L. and D. Stadler (1996). Assessment, client treatment matching, and managing the substance abusing offender. In K.E. Earley (Ed.), Drug treatment behind bars: Prisonbased strategiesfor change. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Press. Wexler, H. K. (1 994). Progress in prison substance abuse treatment: A five year report. Journal o f Drug Issues, 24(2):349-360. Wexler, H. K. & Williams, R. (1986). The Stay’n Out therapeutic community: Prison treatment for substance abusers. Journal o Psychoactive Drugs, 180): 22 1-230. f Wexler, H.K., Falkin, C.P., Lipton, D.S.(1990). Oiricome evaluation o aprison therapeutic Br f communi&for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17(2).- 71-92. Wexler, H. K., Lipton, D.S. & Johnson, B.D. 988). A criminaljustice sysiem strategy for (1 treating cocaine-heroin abusing offenders in custody: Issues and practices in criminal justice. [NCJ-i08560] Washington, DC: U.S.Governmen1 Printing Office.

Wish, E.D., Brady, E. & Cuadrado, M. (1 984). Drug use and crime arrests in Manhattan. Presentation at the 47‘h Meeting of the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependency. New York:Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.
Wish, E.D., and J.A. O’Neill. (September 1989). Drug use forecasting (DUF) research update, January through March, 1989. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

60
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Appendices
Appendix A: Addiction Severity Index (ASI) - Short Form

Appendix B: Addiction Severity Index (ASI) - Long Form

Appendix C: Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS)

Appendix D: Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI)

61
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Appendix A:

Addiction Severity Index (ASI) - Short Form

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

. ..

.

I

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RECEPTION C E N T E F U W H T A M X ABUSE DATA InterviewDate Institution Satellite Inmate Iy MaldFemale

/'

/

TimeEnded Birthdate

:

AM/PM

1

/

First Name
City

Last Name
Home Address county

Stete
Telephone
Race

Zip Code

1 (
MaritalStatns
8

Last Grade School (Completed)

-

SSS

ARREST/ CONVICTION I SENTENCING 1NK)RMATION
# arrests prior 24 months

1-1

T o t a l prior a r r e s t s T o t a l p r i o r convictions

T t l Term oa Man Min

PED or Time Goal

@

Date admitted County Jail Date admitted hption

Actual Max Current offense
SUBSTANCE ABUSE INFORMATION

Was crime drug influenced? If drug influenced, why?

I] -

[ = I

Primary drug use Year o f . 1st use Frequency we (primary drug) Weekly cost of total habit S Primary drug route use

1) money to support habit

2) high at time of offense

3) both
Ifdrugoffense,was it purely for profit?

m]
~-

ADDICTION SEVERITY INDEX RATING

Severity Profile
DRUG

ALCOHOL

0-1 No real problem, treatment not indicated 2-3 Slight problem, treatment probably not necessary 4-5 Moderate problem, some treatmen indicated 6-7 Considerable problem, treatment necessary 8-9 Extreme problem, treatment absolutely necessary

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

-..

P u t 30 D a p
01. Alcohol Any use at all

SO D 4 p Beforw

lnc~rcora tion

LIIzTfME USE
YW8
Monthr

-

02. Alcohol T intoxication o
03. Heroin
04. Methadone

-

12. InhaIants C

I ~ .

*..I

13. More than one substance per day (include sicohol)

1 7 11 7 1
DAY8
YEARS
*HO~-rHS

14. Which s u b s t a n c e ir tbe

-or problem? (Pleasecode (u above; or 00 - No problem: 15 Alcohol Qr Dual Addiction; 16 Polydrug: when not clear, ark)

-

15. How long was your l u t period o f v o l c n abttinence from t h i s mejor rubatan-? ~ (M- never abstinent)

M O h m

16.How m a n y months ago did this abstinence end? (00- still abstinent)

M O h m

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DRUC/ALCOtfOL USE

17. How many times have you:

Had alcohol d. t. ‘E Overdosed on drug8
I

18. How many times in your life have you been treated for:

Alcohol Abuse
Drug Abuse

19. How many of these were detox only?

j -

a

1 9 a How many of these programs did you complete?

20. How much would you say you spent during the last 30 days, before incarceration, on:

Alcohol
k g

,

..

21. How many days have you been treated for alcohol or drugs in the past 30 days? (Include N.A, AA, psychiatrist)

a

22. How many days in the last 30 days (prior to incarceration) had

you experienced:

Al&ol Problems

-.-

D u Problems rg

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.

. .

DRUWALCOHOL USE

FOR Q U " I O N 3 23 & 24, P W E ASK P A " T TO USE PATENTS I U m G SCALE

23. During the part 30 deyr, how troubled or bothered have you been by:

~ ~ h~ o l b
Dnag Problemr

24. At a i r point i time, how important ir it Lo you to get treatment for : n

Alahol h b l u n r

E 1-1
h

~

..
U

23.

How do you rata the inmate's need for treatment fcr:

Dnag Problemr
Alcuhol Pmblecv

1 1

U

COhTIDBNCE RATINCB

Is &e above infomation significartly disbrtsd by:

26. Inrnatc'r mirrepresentation?

0-NO 1 -Ye8
0-No 1 -Yea

27. Inmate's inability to understmd?

I .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Appendix B:

Addiction Severity Index (ASI) - Long Form

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

H r d d C. Lhehd, II. M.D.

-w

LL. fharvr Mtl.&m. Ph.D.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

m -.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-. .

INTERVIEWER SEVERITY RATING
22. H o w would you nt@ . prtimt'8 I h for mmploylmnt tovruolmng?
fbad

0

- CONFIDENCE mnrws
23. Pitimnt'r mnmpresmnution?
24. htient'r hbiw to und.fSt8nd?

Is the above infomutian rignidruntty distoned by:

-

0 *- '-*- 0
'-*-

-. _.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

t 0.

19.

20.

21.

21b. <OPTIONAL> How rruy dm b w y w been mated as an ircpnimt for rlcohol o drum in the p u t 30 dam? r

m
m
D

0

22. How many dwyr m the p n t 30 hrw you

-

mxpamncad:
.k*rdr

Alcohdprobknrr?

orrrv: w. -mrooo111.
.tr.co d la..
Q

Drug probkmr?

.rm.p)o stoo md b.ng urbk Do.

23; How tmubkd 01 botherwd h8vr you b n n in the p u t 30 dryr by m e :
A k o h d vrobhmr? Drug probkms? 20. How bnportani to you now is trutment for these: Akohd ptobkmr?

oruo probkmr?.

INTERVIEWER RAnNG
25. How would you n t e tha p8thnt.r 11o.d for treatment: Akohol pmbkmr? Drug probkmr?

0

a a

0

n

CONFIDENCE RATINGS

*

26. Patient's mirrepr.ren&n?
Zf.'~Pnirnt's hbitity to undontmd?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

....

.

28. How w o u M you m the patunt'r rwrd lor a
k0.1 sowicrr

o counding? r

0

CONFIDENCE RATINGS
I t the above mfWmrti0.n rignificrntty dirtonad h : 29. Patient's mrrrrprrsantatiorr? 0-DW b I 'a

30. Patirm's inrbilitv to vnknwnd?

-

*--

'-"a
m g ,

0

FAMILY

HISTORY

Have any of VOW bloo&rol8tod nlrtivrr hrd w h t you wDu# d l a mal did or should have L.d to numwnt?

--

W, a pydrttric

m. on

unt
nclc

FAMILY HISTORY C

O

m

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

-.. .

CONFIDENCE RATING

0

Is t t u 8bow irfomubian sigdfiuntty dbtonrd by: 25. Pnirm'8 mbmpra~mnion?

h t i m t ' s bubjiry to Undennnd?

-

D 0

...

.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-. .

e

CONFIDENCE RATING

I

e

-

I I -t

I

. _

.. .

-

..

. .

. .

_ ..

c

.-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Appendix C:

Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS)

a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

TCU DRUG SCREEN
Duriag t t e ! t 6 months hzforc prison x

-

I Circlebiver 1
]=Yes
I=Yes Z=Ye.s

1. Did you often use Inner m o u n t s of dnies (including alcoholj or use them for a l o n m tims than you had planned or inwnded? ............O=No 2. Did you uv to CUI dovm on druos and were umblc to do it? ................... O=No

3. Did you spend a lot of time gening drugs, using them, or movering from thzir LEX? ..................................................................
4. Did yoti oficn set so hieh or sick from dngs that it

0=No

-1 =Ye.s

a. k e t vou fiom doing work, going to school,

or caring for children'?.............................................................. 0=No

b. caused an accident or became a danger to you or others'? .........O ho ='

]=Yes

5. Did you ofien mend lass time. at work. school. or with fiiends so that you c o d d use drugs? ..................................................................

0=Nu

1=Yes

6. In the last 6 monrhs before prison, did your drug use ofien cause -a. emotional or psvcholoeical problems? ...................................... ~ = N O ]=Yes b. problems with familv. friends. work. or Dolice? ........................ 0=No l=Yes c. phvsical health or mdical problems? ........................................ 0=Nu 1 =Yes

7. Did you increase the amount of a drug you were mlcing so that you could get h e same effects as before? ....................................O=L%

I=Ye.v I=Yes

8. Did you ever keep taking a drug to moid w-wd or keep from eettiny sick? ...................................................................... O=No 9. Did you get sick or have withdrawal when you quit or misssd taking o drug'?...........................................................

Q=Nv

I =Yes
DRUG X

10. Which dnirs caused you the MOST serious problcmq i the 1 ;6 monrhs beforc prison'? [SHE LIST BELOWJ n s

worst. ..........1-

-............1Next:
-............!-I Next.
CHOOSE "DRUG #s" FROM THIS LIST: 3. Munj'uunu . 0. None 1. Alcohol 4. Cucuine or cruck 2. lilhulu,lt.s 5. Other stimulants
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DRUG

+

DRUG 4

6. Trunguilizers or sedulivev 7. Hullucinvgexv 8. Opiuttzs

I I. How ofrrn did you use each type of drug during thc last 6 months before prison?

a. Alcohol ................................................................

0

1
1 1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4

b.

.. 1

‘Hashish ...............................................

D
1)

c. FIalliicinoern~lLSD/P~y~h~d~~ics/PCP:

mushrooms/pcyotz.. .............................................

4
4
4

d. Cra cWFrrebase ....................................................

0
0
0

I
I
I
1
1

2 2

3 3
3
3

e. Heroin and Cocaine (mixed together as speedball) ...............................
f. Cocaine (by itself) ................................................

2
2 2

4 4

g. h.

Hzrohl (by irsr.ll) .................................................. S c t Mcthadone (!ion-prctscriprionj ....................

Y
0 0

3

4
4

i. Orher ODiatcs/Opium~orphinelDemerol .............

1

2
2 2
2

3
3

j.

.

/SpccdlIcelOchrr Upper..... s.....

Q
0 0

I

4
4
4

k. Tranauilkrs/B&itura teslSedatives.....................
1. Orher (p~i>)

1

3
3

......

1

12. Ln the 6 months before entering prison, how oficn did you hject h a s with a needle? 0. Ntver

I . Only u .Jew times

2. 1-3 rimes a month

3. 1-5 tirnrs a week

4. About

Wery t h y

13. How serious do you think your drug problems are?

0. Nut ut 011

1. Slightly

2. hfuderute!v

3. Convideruhly

4. Exbemely

14. How many times before now have you ever been i a dru? or alcohol n Uf%ment profgam? [DO NOT INCLUDE AA/NA/JCA hlEETINGS] ...............................

!-I
t: m S l E

15. Do you think you need ~ ~ a t t n e i i t your drug ilse now? .......................O=Xu for

I=l”.s*

+IT “YES”: a. Bow
0. Not ut ull

M vqu is it that you get into some type of treatment p r o m now?

1. S!iyhtly

2. hfudmutcLy

3. Consi(1eruhly

4. €.fremely

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Scoring.for the TCU Drug Screen

Pagz 1 of the TCU Drug.Depen&nce Screen is scorsd as follows:
1. Give I-point to each “yes” response to 1-9 (Questions 4 and 6 are worth one point each if a respondent answers “yes” to any portion).

2. The total score can range fiom 0 to 9;score values of 3 or =eater indicate relatively severe drug-related problems, and correspond approximately to DSM drug depm dence diagnosis.
3. Responses to Question 10 indicate which drug (or drugs) the respondent feels is primarily responsible for his or her drug-related problems.

There have been no composite score protocols developed for Items 11-15 on Page 2.

-c

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

-..

Appendix D:

Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

..-_
.

CPAI QUESTIONNAIRE.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.. .

.

PRoGR A hi CI I A R.ACTERTSTI cs
I . X3mc of the Program: 2. H3me of Contact Person:

3. Address, Phone fi' and fax rr" of program setting:

4. ~ c 3 r s Operation: in
. . 5. Progrnm Setting (e.g., community residential centcr, institution, probation 0f t ce): i . .. .. -.

6 Number of residcntslparticipants: .
E juven i le: fi adult: % inaIe/fem~.Ie:

7. Number of staff:

e FuII-time:
Z: z :

Part-time:

5 male/fema!c:
S. What is the program budget?

9.Does this program rcceive all its resources from the government or is it funded by grants or contracts from other sourccs?
IO. IS thcre a docamented program philosophy?

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Yes

NO

Arc you involved in directly supmising thc staff in the instifution/Frogram?

Yes

No

16. Was there a literature search to identify relevant prozrarn niatcrids needed to design h e program? Yes No
. If yes, what was the scope or extent of the search?

17. Prior to the implementation of the formal program, was there a pilot period of the program to try to work out the practical aspects of the program and any problems?
Yes

No

If there was a pilot program, how long did it lajt?
What, if any, changes were made in the program as a result of the pilot experience?

IS. Was there 8 n assessment of the nced for the p r o p m in the institution or community it
serves? Yes
NO

If yes, describe how this messment was done:
I<EVISED 4121137

-

3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

22. \\l;cn clients first come to the program, what kinds of problems do you most often see? (c.s., drug abuse, emotional problems, anthocia' values or attitudes, stxual offending)

23. [it) fccl that the type of cIicnts that you receive are appropriate for the treatment (OR yo11 stil;vtcrs 1 you provide? (explain)

24. Arc tficrc any exclusionary criteria prohibiting a client from entering the piogram?

Yes

NO

if ycs, what is the basis for excluding clients?

25. \ k n 7 client cnters the program, do you assess his or her risk factors t h x would predict rcc i d i vis m?

*

Yes

NO

26. If yes, what is the method used?

5
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS -

x -\\'hat,primnrV

chang -S in the pcrson's attitudes and bchaviors does the progrm tzrget?

{[hTcRVE\'.ZS M A Y WISH TO PfiOXIFT FGR THE FOLLOWISC TARGZTS LlSTED BELO\\':)

a ) chmzc xrirudes. oritnt3tions. and b) changc antisocial fcclings

V ~ X S

fwO:ab!c to law violaiions end mii-criminil rol: n o d t l s

c]

rducc .mtisoci3l pccr associ~tions r:p!acing thc skills of lying. stca!inp. hid tggrcssion with prosacid al:cmativcs iucrc~sc self-control. sclf-nxirragcmcnt, a d problcrn solving skills cncocr3gc constructiv: usc of kisure h e improw skills in intcrprnonal conflict resolution pronmtc morc positive attitudcslincrcase pcrfonnvlcc rcpxdinp school work rsolvc emotional problcrns associated with hira or cxtra-f3miIid child abuse pronioic f m d y aficcrionlcomrnunication prorrzxe BnGlp monitorin@supervision improve family probkm solving resolve dcvimt scxuil Yous~~~ttituCcSIbChavior provic'c low-prcsscrc. rhc!ICrcd cn\.ironmtnt for rncntdly dirordcrcd oficndcrs lucus on h . done to victim 3m rclapsc prcvcntion allcvixc the pcrsonsl and circurrs.tmndal harricrs IO scriicc (clicnr nodvation. back~round s::u;sors)
I

d) rrrlucc problcns sssodaicd with JcohoVdrug abuse e) rc;Ju:I: ;mgerhosiiIity ICVCI
r)

h) 1)
j) t)

I) nr) n)
0)

p) q)

r) s)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

e

:s.

If a prison, are clients separated from rest of institution? in
~f in

Yes

No
Yes No

the cotnmunity. arc clients whcreabouts and peer associations closely monitored?

37.

you have 2 manual that details the types of treatment to be provided and treatment

activities?

3s.(b ([Icrc a schcdulc that clients follow on a typical day?} What is the scheduIe that clients follow during a typical day? (IT thcrc is no schedule, then ask how many hours per week they spend in treatment in their program.}

I this tlic samc scven days a week? Y s s e

NO

If no, how docs it vary?

9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

40- Dots the program match the type of treatment with the characteristics of individual clients? (offenders arc assigned to a program that matches upbest with their interesB,

style of leaning, etc). Yes

No

If ycs, p!cm provide some examples of how this is done,

-; L)OC:S rlic program match the personal and professional skills of the staff with the type of 1. trciitnicnt that they provide?

Yes

No

If ycs, please provide some examples of how this is done.

42.Ilocs tlic program niatch the personal and professional skills of the treatment providers with {hc type of client and’nzture of his or her problems? Yes No

If

~CS,

plcasc provide some examples of how this is done.

11
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

97. How 3re punishments and disincentives administered?
1

When do you punish?

Once s punishment has been decided, can a client ever esczpe from punishnmt?

Do you wait nntii the bad bchavior has been completed or do you try to intervene at the
cnrlicst point in the behavior (try to stop it)?

Is there some sort of punishment after every occurrence of deviant behavior?

Do you vary the punishment over time?

After 3 punishment has been administered, do you teach them a more prosocial alternative behavior?

4 .Do you assess whether the punishments produce unintended negative effects? s

Yes

NO

If ycs, what reactions do you look for?
(do you look for emotional reactions (fear, interference with learning, disruption of social relationships), avoidance/aggression toward punishers, increase in future use of punishment by offender, production of response substitution, lacks p-teralitation)

...

13
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

- -. DOCS the program tcach the clients to practice new behaviors in increasingly difficult
57

situations?
Yes

No

.

If ycs, describe the training they receive:

5.;. 1Jpm lcnving thc program, areclicnts routinely referred to other services that are rclcvant to the their needs?

Yes

NO

a

5 1. tlrc CIOSS rclntions/fricnds of the clients taught to provide help to the client during problcni situations? Yes No

II' ycs. what type of training do they receive:

55. t l k r tlic clictit is released, is he or she brought back into the program for "booster" scssioils?

Il' ycs. dcscribc thc booster sessions:

1s

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

a
N;lnlc

e
Ihck ck

17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.-. . .

a
I Jov; long docs this training take? (Number of days)

D,'I 311 program staff participate in ongoing training programs, workshops or confer:nc:,s? Ye.s No

[ f y s flowoften docs ongoing training occur and how many staff panicipate?

a

II

i.1 1 ; stxff'bccri able to ~

Iiiodify the program structure? - Yes . N O

II' ycs. plcasc provide some examples of modifications made.

c

19
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

.

Outcorric or process evaluation?
-

\Vim \*:as the cvaIuation conducted?
W:ts a comparison group used?

Yes

NO

i+.

IS tirt.rc rl

cfociimcnt containing the details of the cffectiventss of the program on file?

Yes

NO

70. I [z-; XI CKLILI:IL~OI~ tlic program been published in an edited journal? of

Yes
,

No

Jounrd name?

c

21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

a

75- 1pdw tficrc bccn any changcs in community support for the prosram in the past

}cars?

Yes

NO

-.
. .. .. 11-ycs.to whai cstcnt h a the change in cornmuniiy support jeopardized the smooth functioning of thc program?
I .

76- t h p i t i hnvc an advisory board (Board of Directors) or EL consultant officially designated
io civcrstc

or rdvisc the program in somt fashion o r another?

Yes

NO

PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (Nu%)

23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.