outcome evaluation of the south carolina residential substance abuse treatment program for state...

8/14/2019 Outcome Evaluation of the South Carolina Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program for State Prisoners

1/89

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Outcome Evaluation of the South CarolinaResidential Substance Abuse TreatmentProgram for State Prisoners

Author(s): J. Mitchell Miller Ph.D. ; Barbara Koons-WittPh.D.

Document No.: 199407

Date Received: 04/02/2003

Award Number: 2000-RT-VX-K001

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

Opinions or points of view expressed are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.


2/89

An Outcom e Evaluation of the South CarolinaResidential Substance Abuse Treatment Programfor State Prisoners

Subm itted to:Evaluations of the Residen tial Substance Abuse T reatmentFor State Prisoners ProgramNational Institute of Justice p p ; - - " - - - Y633 Indiana Avenue NW LPI Y' O FWashington, DC 20531

By J. Mitchell Miller, Ph.D .College of Criminal JusticeUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, SC 29208L;..E]!;A:"~EPP0R-rf l ! &,&!!55~ , _ -AndBarbara Koons-Witt, Ph.D. qp?mved By.

College of Criminal JusticeUniversity of South C arolina - 'aie. -Columbia, SC 29208b0ea

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


3/89

Table of ContentsGlossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Executive Sum mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4I. The D rugs-Crime N exus and the National RSA T Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711. The South Carolina RSAT Program: Overview and History . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . .. 10

Th e Correctional Recov ery Academy . . .Therapeutic Community . . . . .Program S taf f . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Program Participants .Program Implementati

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. Methodology . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Research Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ., . . . . 23Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Subject Selection t o Treatment and Com parison Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 24Specification and Measurem ent of Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5

IV . Data Analysis and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .2 7Samp le Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . .Phase I11Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Program Outcomes Dur 32Community Supervision . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .3 6Outcom e Measures . . . . .Predictors of Failure While Under Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5Implications of he Findings . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5Relevant R esearch Issues and Barriers , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .46VI. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .59VII. Other Reference Material .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

II

2



4/89

GLOSSARYBTU Basic Training U nit, provides military style regimented boot camp training andintense edu cation and life skills programm ingCRA Correctional Recovery AcademyFelony: a crime for which th e maximum penalty is a year o r more in a prison.Misdemeanor: a crime for which the m aximum allow able penalty is less than one year in a localjail.Nonviolent substance abuser: inmate who w as not convicted of a violent crime and whoregularly used drugs and/or alcoho l.Parole: supervision required w hen a prison inm ate is released to the com mun ity before serving

the full sentenceprobation: sentence imposed by a court thzt invo lves supervision in the comm unity by aprobation departmentrecidivism:rearrest, reconviction or reincarceration for a new offense or for a violation of paroleor probationRSAT Residential Su bstance Abuse TreatmentS.A.S.S.I. : Substance Abuse Subtle Screening InventorySCDC: South Carolina Department o f C orrectionsSCDPPPS: South Carolina Departmen t of Probation, Pardon and Parole ServicesTUTherapeutic Community: esidential substance abuse treatment where inm ates are housed ina separate unit within th e pris od jail facility, featuring highlystructured treatment involving resocialization, intensive cou nselingand increasing responsibilities as the inma te progresses through theprogram.WRAT Wide Range A chievement TestYOA:Youthful Offender ActYOIP:Y ou th kl Offender Intensification Program

3



5/89

I

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe enormous growth in the prison population is largely a h nc tio n of drug-crime

recidivism and bolstered d rug enforcement activities. The delivery of treatmen t services in aprison setting is a logical approach to the problem and feature certain advantages over outpatientand voluntary form s of treatmen t, including certainty of program enrollment and participation,program mo dalities specific to residential settings as treatment options, and ensured participationin post-release aftercare through th e parole process.

The logic of drug treatme nt in correctional settings prompted Congressional endors eme ntof the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for S tate Prisoners Formula G rantProgram, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 . F unding frclnthis program establish ed a RSA T program within the Turb eville Correctional Institute, a stateprison located in Tu rbeville, SC and managed by the South Carolina Department of Corrections(SCDC ). The Sou th Carolina RS AT program is known as the Correctional Recovery Academy(CRA), a m odified therapeu tic comm unity utilizing a cognitive behavioral approac h withprojected length of stay between 8 to 12 months based on inmate performance. The CR A treats17 to 2 4 year old m ales convicted for the first time o f a non-violent drug related crim e andsentenced under the Youthhl Offender Act (YOA).

The primary objective of this evaluation was to determine whether the CRA is aneffective treatment option for male youthfid offenders with chem ical dependency problems. Theconducted research constitutes an outcome evaluation utilizing a quasi-experimental design thatspecified and operation ally defined traditional evaluation design com pon ents: 1) comparisongro ups (a treatment gro up of CR A participantd graduates and a control group of offenders drawnfrom the general SCD C population by a matched sampling selection strategy, 2) an independent



6/89

variable (th e CR A curriculum ), 3) criterion measures (failure as indicated by recidivism o rrelapse) and 4) a twelve-month follow-up period.

A total of 303 offenders comprised the overall sample (160 CRA participants and 143control group participants). Several types of analytic technique s were used to assess programeffectivenes s. Th e analysis first summarized de scriptive statistics, both as a whole andseparately for the treatment and control groups. T-test, chi-square or gamma we re used todeterm ine effectiveness in reducing recidivism and relapse during the parole period. Logisticregression wa s used to assess whether independent variables (race, age, educational attainme nt,employm ent, CR A participation, criminal history, number of positive drug tests and total numberof dr ug tests) w ere pred ictive of failure during the fi?!lcw-up period.

Ou r analysis indicated that the South Carolina RSA T program did not effectively reducethe failure rate of the CRA participants and graduates. The CR A graduates recidivated andrelapsed at a slightly highe r rate than did control gro up subjects, but not to a degree of statisticalsignificance. Th e observ ed failure rate thus indicates that the program w as not effective inreducing either recidivism or in reducing dru g use relapse during the follow-up period.

Finding s specific to drug testing w ere unexpected in that he failure rate covaries with thetotal number o f drug tests given. While it is expected that increasing the number of drug testswill likely result in a h igher frequency of dirty urine and ultimately failure, the subjects in thisstudy failed drug tests less when the tests were conducted more frequently. Whereas it isassumed th at testing mo re often will result in an observed incre ase in dirty urine leading topossible revocation, the drug testing amo ng o ur sample appeared to affect perceptual deterrence,the most salient finding of our variable analysis.

5



7/89

vDDDDBBBBBBBDbF111bbb1111

Conside ration of the o bserved failure rate prompted consideration of the SC RSAT 'program and our evaluation effort to the conclusion that several barriers specific to programperformance are also relevant to effectively conduc ting evaluation. Accordingly, we identifiedspecific impedim ents to program assessment and typologized them into separate but interrelateddomains. From this domain, the potential additive effects of various barriers to correctionalprogram evaluation are illustrated and offer analytic utility sp ecific to evaluation design.

B

1

6



8/89

I. THE DRUGS-CRIME NEXUS AND THE NATIONAL RSAT INITIATIVEThe co mplex relationship between drugs and crime has been extensively analyzed to the

confirmation of the criminogen ic effects of use (Men ard et al., 2001; MacKenzie and Uchida,1994; Tonry and W ilson, 1990; Walters, 1994; Inciardi, 1981 ). One of the most salient findingsin the ex tant drug -related crime literature is that most inm ates are seriously involved with drugsand alcoh ol. Wh ile reported levels of offender substance abuse varies across studies, findingsilluminate a staggering and embedded problem. Over half of all jail and state prison inmatesadm itted to drug us e in the month before their offense, and 33% of state prisoners com mittedtheir current offense while under the influence of drugs (Offender Substance Abuse Report,2001), and 19% of state and 55 % of federal inmates are convicted o f a drug law violation(CASA, 1998).

The eno rmous prison growth in the U nited S tates, 1.9 million American adults in federal,state and local facilities (NIJ Journal, 2000), is largely a fbnction of drug crime and relatedheightened dru g enforcement camp aigns that impo se a heavy financial burden on the system. Inshort, one in every 144 American adults is incarcerated for a crime involving drugs or alcohol(CASA, 1998).

These and similar statistics can chan ge for the better if inmates identified with substanceabus e problems can be successfully treated. There is considerable logic to providing thetreatment in correctional settings. The delivery of treatment services in prisons is a seeminglypromising app roach and has certain advantag es relative to o utpatient and voluntary treatment.These advantages include: 1) certainty of program enrollm ent and participation by individualswh o would not likely seek treatment on their ow n (i.e. coerced p articipatiodguaranteed deliveryof treatment), 2) program mod alities specific to residential settings a s treatment options, and 3 )

7



9/89

I

the parole process en sures participation in post-release aftercare services. Th e prison-basedtreatmen t of hardcore drug users that are high probability recidivists seem s both a logical andefficient approach to impacting the general crime ra te.

The NationalRSA T InitiativeThe blatant need to reduce offender drug use and the logic of doing so through prison-

based treatm ent resulted in Con gression al endo rsement of drug treatment for prisoners at thestate level on a national scale, Th e Violent Crime Control and Law E nforcement Act of 1994directed the Department of Justice to support states in the provision of treatment to offendersthrough the ResideEtial Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for Stzte Pr ism ers Formula G rm tProgram . All of the states were eligible for participation upon meeting certain fundingrequirements: 1) offende r participation must b e fi-om six to twe lve mon ths, 2) the residentialtreatmen t facility is physically distinct and set apart from the general corre ctional population, 3)the program is specialized so as to focus on the substance abuse problems o f the inmate, 4) heprogram incorpo rates the de velopm ent of the inmate's behavioral, cognitive, social andvocational skills, and 5) the program implements reliable drug testing, most commonlyurinanalysis, for inmates participating in the RS AT program.

Forty-seven states, the five territories and the District of Colum bia have each generatedplans for at least one RSAT program. At the state level, numerous implementation and processevaluations have been conducted, followed by an o utcom e evaluation at most sites. A nationalevaluation of all the RS AT programs from onset to midpoint was also cond ucted (Lipton et al.,1999). The national evaluation found that the main RSA T treatment approaches weretherapeutic com munities, cognitive-behavioral and tw elve-step, and that primary considerations

8



10/89

FDPB across RSAT programs included implementation delays, gender and age issues, the appropriate

combination of treatment approaches and aftercare, as well as the continuity of treatment. In all,there were seventy separate RSAT programs that, at the m idpoint evaluation, had 7,700 currentclients and more than 3,600 graduates.

BDDDBDDDD1BDD#1bb1111I

9



11/89

11. THE SOUTH CAROLINA RSAT PROGRAM: OVERVIEW AND HISTORYThe aforementioned Violent C rime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that

established the Residential Su bstance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT) Formu laGrant Program and ad ministered by the US Office of Justice Programs, w as the b asis for thecreation of an RSA T program in South Carolina. During Fiscal year 1996, the S outh CarolinaDepa rtment of Co rrections (SCD C) received $42 5,301 under this program to establish aresidential su bstance abuse treatment program and selected the Turbeville Correctional Instituteas the program setting.

During the winter of 1997, SCDC signed a contract with CiviGenics, a M assachusettsbase d, pl-ivate for-profit provider of substance abuse prograniming, to design and op erate aRSAT program for males 17 through 25 years of age who have been sentenced to SCDC underthe South Carolina Youthfbl Offender Act (YO A) and who have been identified as having ahistory of substance abuse. This legislation, as amended in 1996, provides that youthfbloffenders (known as YOAs) must: 1) be 17 to 25 years of age; 2) not be convicted for a seriousviolent offense; 3) not be sentenced twice under this act; 4) receive an indeterm inate sentence of1 to 6 years; 5 ) receive appropriate treatment in m inimum or medium security institutions, and,6) be segregated from othe r offenders.

Most YO A sentences mandate a minimum of 10 mon ths in a SC DC institution, thoughsome mandate up to 25 m onths minimum incarceration. When YOA offenders are released onparole they remain under S CD C superv ision in the comm unity, for a minimum of one year, untilthey are unco nditionally released so metim e before the six-year anniversary of their convictiondate. YOA m inimum and medium security institutions are defined to include hospitals, farms,boot camps, forestry/wilderness camps, vocational training facilities, and other institutions that

10



12/89

provide ap propriate treatm ent, YO A treatment can be characterized as corrective and preventivetraining designed to protect the public by co rrecting the antisocial tendencies o f the y ou th hloffenders.

The South Carolina RSAT program is known as the Correctional Recovery A cademy(CRA ) and the T urbeville Correctional Institution in which it is housed is a medium securityinstitution. Built in 1994, this institution ho uses 1,138 offenders, 800 of whom are YOAs (theremaining 228 are non-YOA inmates who perform maintenance and support work). Turbevilleprovides a controlled movem ent environment and offers programm ing that includes GEDpreparation, plumbing and carpentry training, and employment in a cut and sew garment prisonindustry. Cofitrol!ed movement of the inmate pp ul at io n provides 8 high degree of structure andinmate accountability.

n e CorrectionalRecovery Academy (CRA)Th e Correctional Recovery Academy is a modified therapeutic community, utilizing a

cognitive behavioral approach with a projected length of stay between 6 to 12months dependingon inmate perform ance. Eligibility for participation in the program is based upon 1) a reasonableopportunity for parole eligibility upon com pletion of the program and 2) a minimum SASS1score indicating dependence (later changed to a minimum score on the TC U Drug DependencyScreen). Th e primary treatment m ethodologies employed by the C RA include cognitive re-structuring towa rds pro-social, pro-deliberative norms, cognitive-behavioral training tow ardsrelapse prevention an d social reintegration, social learning mechanism s of therapeuticcommunities ('TC'), and the spiritual community of a Tw elve Step fellowship.

11



13/89

III

II

At adm ission to the program, and again upon completion o f the program, each inmate isadministered the TCU D rug Dependency Screen or the S.A .S.S .I., he Crim inal Sentiments Scale(CSS ) and the Coping Behavior Inventory (CBI). The Criminal Sentiments Scale measures thedeg ree to which participants exhibit thoughts and attitudes that are highly associated with illegalbehavior. The Cop ing Behavior Inventory measures behaviors and thoughts that are used a scoping mechanism s helpful in avoiding relapse. The CRA staff uses these instruments as two ofthe primary m easures of treatment outco mes . That is, if effective, the C RA intervention shouldprodu ce graduates who display an increased usage of coping skills to avoid relapse (as measuredby the C BI) and a decreased level of attitudes correlated with recidivism (as measured by theCSS).

The addictions treatment unit occupies one dormitory that has 136 beds, o ffice andmee ting space. A separate building provides additional space for treatmen t activities. Durin gaddictions treatment, YO As are separated from the general population. Their dormitory cannotbe acces sed by offend ers not enrolled in the program and all treatment is provided in thedormitory or the program building. YOA s in the addictions treatment unit will share som efacilities (e.g . the cafeteria) with th e general population, but do so either at special times so as toprevent or m inimize contact with other inmates.

Th e CRA is a variable length program with graduation based on com pletion of allprogram assignments and activities. The minimum length of stay is 6 months and many

residents are expected to finish the com plete program in that time, but som e require up to 12months to finish the program. The C RA is divided into three phases: 1) assessment andorientation (4 weeks); 2) main treatment (1 2 weeks); and 3 ) re-entry and transitional planning (8weeks). Given the 136 bed limit, the total popu lation that could be accom mo dated in one year

12



14/89

I

would vary from a minimum of 13 6 to a maximum of 272. CiviGenics estimates a probableannual capacity of approximately 250. Selection of YOA s for participation in the CR A was thecontractual responsibility of SCDC. How ever, during the assessm ent and orientation phase CRAstaff administere d several instrum ents to assess resident fbn ctioning and help guide individualtreatment plans.

Th e CRA w as initially populated in three 45 member waves of YO As. Each wave wasdrawn from treatment eligible YOAs in the general population o f SC DC . Th e first wave of 45entered on September 1 , 1997 and the second and third waves entered on October 1st andNovember Is*, respectively. As CR A beds subsequently became available, either due tograduation or program attrition, new participants were se!ected from th e 34 member YOA"platoons " that left the agricultural wo rk program ea ch week and were ready for institutionalassignment.

n e nerapeutic CommunityThere exists numerous treatment modalities available for the treatment of substance

abuse, however, the therapeutic comm unity approach is unique in that the comm unity is used asthe primary method fo r promoting social and psychological chang e in individuals. The TCunites and empo wers people to learn about themselves and promo te personal change. The TCprovide s learning opportunities as individu als eng age in a variety of social roles. Individuals areactive participants in th e process o f changing themselves and others.

Mem bership in the TC provides the primary source of instruction and support forindividual change. Eac h participant shares responsibility for all TC mem bers and strives to be arole model for ch ang e. Learn ing and healing take place in a social context and through social

13



15/89

disc ours e. Learning is achieved through sp ecific skills training and the orderliness of the T C andits procedures.

The T C differs from other method s of drug treatment in that the primary therapist andteacher is the community itself. The T C views drug abuse as a disorder of the whole person.Individua ls are distinguished not through dru g-use patterns but by psychological dysfu nction andsocial deficits. TCs emphasize a view of "right living" and require adherence to certain preceptsand values. Th e primary psychological goal is to change negative patterns of thinking, feelingand behav ing. Th e main so cial goal is to develop a responsible drug-free lifestyle (Wexler et al.,1999).

During th e last decade, thc TC c oncept has been implemented into correctionalinstitutions, medical and m ental hospitals and com mu nity and shelter setting. Th e basic sociallearning model has been m odified to include family, educational, vocational, medical and mentalhealth professionals. Tod ay these programs provide service to an estimated 80,000 clientsannual1y .

TC s incorporate certain comm on features which include: the use o f ex-offenders and ex-addicts as staff, use of confrontation and support groups; a safe environment based upon clearlydefined rules and sanctions; isolation of the com munity from the general prison population; andthe develop men t of pro-social attitudes . In the correctional setting, TC s operate the same way.The TC s focus is criminal behavior and substance abuse. The goal is for the mem bers of the TCto be self-regulating and motivated to cooperate with the staff.

The C RA concept incorp orates several major adaptations of traditional methods o ftreatment. The focus o f the program is to treat recovery from both addiction and criminalbehavior as equal issues. Th e cognitive behavioral competencies learned in the CRA are

14



16/89

designed to prevent relapse both to addiction and to criminality. The key t o the treatmentmod ality is that cou nselors adopt the role of authority figure. These autho rity figures modelauthority as the provider of both security and know ledge. The orientation of the program istoward life in the " free world " outside of prison. Though the coping skills taught in the CRAhave use within the prison setting, the focus is toward life back o n the streets.

The tools of the CRA are based upon the core belief that all of us have a "habit sel f' andan "inner sel f'. For the inmate, the "habit se lf' is the main m echanism leading him or her backto criminality and addiction. To combat this problem, a new "inn er self'' mu st be trained tocontrol the old "habit sel f'. The learning process is based upon four principles of how peoplelearn. First, they must have successfbl role models; this is part of th e ro!e of the counselor.Second, the inmate must have the social support of the comm unity; the T C provides this supportstructure. Third, the inmate requires good practical guidance; the CR A program provides thisstructured training. Finally, the inmate requires approv al and encouragem ent. Approval andencouragement must com e from both program and security staff.

In the CRA model, recovery equals overcoming both crime and drug abuse. Thisrecovery takes place in four dimensions. First the inmate must de-activate the old cravings andweaknesses of the "habit self". Second, the inm ate must experience "re-joyment" in a new "innerself". The CR A model em phasizes that drugs do bring pleasure to the user. Not only is thispleasure real, but it is also intense and easy. Th e inmate must learn a new way of achieving joy

through his or her actions. The third dim ension of recovery is negotiation of a new rewardsystem based upon ''real" pro-social activity. Finally, this new "inner sel f' must replace the old"habit self' throu gh a process of presentation.

15



17/89

Other therapeutic comm unity concep ts are also used by the CRA. A privilege systemexists within the comm unity. As inmates move through the program, they gain more freedom ofaction within the commu nity. There is also a corresponding increase in responsibility. Thesenior members o f the comm unity are expected to be positive role m odels. They are expected tofacilitate the grou p process for newer members of the comm unity.

Ro le modeling is emphasized in the community meeting held within the CR A structure.Eac h day begins with a m orning m eeting that is ritualized and designed to motivate thecomm unity. Each evening there is another meeting that serves as a summation of the com munityand individual experiences of the day. In addition, the CR A conducts academy meetings, phasemeetings, and twelve step fellowship meetiiigs.

Program S t a8

As of May 3, 1999 the expanded CR A had a staff of 24 (Ruefle and Miller, 1999). Thisrepresented an increase of 9 positions over the original CR A. Of the original 15 employees, only5 still remained with the C RA and only three o f the original cohort of 11 counselors remained.O f the 24 em ployees, 21% (5) were hired in 1997, 29% (7) were hired in the second half of 1998,and 21% (5 ) we re hired in the first half of 1 999 . The fact that half of the current employees hadbeen with th e program for less than a year is attributable to both the expan sion of the programand the high rate of staff turnover (Ruefle and Miller, 1999).

The staff of 24 identified in the process eva luation has a black majority and a femalemajority. M ore specifically, it wa s comprised of 33 % (8) black males, 33% (8 ) white females,21% (5) black females and 13% (3) wh ite males. W hile this represented a significant level ofdiversity - an im portant feature for a program that serves an overwhelm ingly black inmate

16



18/89

population - it is worth noting that all of the black em ployees were in the cou nselor positions,while all of the adm inistrative positions were held by whites.

A noteworthy characteristic of the C RA staff was that five of them had previously servedas correction al officers at the T urbeville Correctional Institution (two had SCD C securityassignm ents at the CR A before being hired as coun selors). All five of these former correctionalofficers had prior couns eling experienc e. In addition to a change in respon sibilities, the switchfrom SCDC correctional officer to C RA counselor also brought an increase in salary (a startingCRA cou nselor earns $23,000 per year while a starting SCDC correctional officer earns $18,000per year).

Program ParticipantsMa le inmates sentenced under the lo uth hl Offender Act represent a difficult and

growing population. During Fiscal Year 1991, a total of 1,488 YOA males were admitted toSCD C (Ruefle and M iller, 1999). By Fiscal Year 1998, that figure had g rown to 1,850, anincrease of 24% in just seven years (Ruefle and M iller, 199 9). In this span, the number of YOAsreturning to SCD C due to revocation increased from 18% to 37% of the total YOA population.Th e most recent statistics available reveal that 25% of this population has a dang erous drugconviction as their most serious offense. Robbery and burglary, widely recognized in thecriminal justic e world as com panion offen ses for drug users, made up 11% and 16%of the mostserious YOA offenses, respectively (Ruefle and M iller, 1999). In addition, 85% of YOA malesreport an alcohol and/or drug problem.

A typical YOA inmate has an average Wide Range Achievement T est (WRAT) readingscore of 7 . 3 and an average education al grade level of 10.1;possesses m inimum work experience

17



19/89

IIIl

or skills; was reared by a single parent; grew u p in a low income and high crime neighborhood;and, has weak social attachments. Approximately 50% of the YOAs have a prior criminalhistory.

Because of the com bination of these factors, this population is m ore difficult toeffectively rehabilitate in traditional prog rams , and therefore more likely to return to previousbehavioral patterns when released into their prior environm ent. A study comparing F Y 1992YO A Releas es and Straight Sentence Releases by Sentence Type and Age at Release, hrn ish edby SCD C Resou rce and Information Managem ent Services, showed that 45.3% of the YOApopulation are returned to SCD C within 36 months, versus 30.8% of the non-YOA population.

Upon entering SCDC, all Y O As sp end t w week s at the Rece ption and Eva!uation Centerwhere they are screened and assessed to: 1) determine their classification level; 2) identifyproblems and/or health conditions that require special programming; and 3) determine theappropriate treatment option. For example, the S.A .S.S .I. Substance Abuse Subtle ScreeningInventory ) is used to identify those YO As in need of residential subs tance abuse treatmen t. Afterscreening, YOA s spend four weeks at a Basic Training Unit (BT U) which provides military styleregimented boot camp training and intense education and life skills programming. Th e BTU isintended to teach the in ma te discipline, responsibility, self-respect, and the proper way tocomm unicate with staff mem bers.

Upo n graduation from the BT U, YOA s spend four weeks in an agricultural program

where they perform m anual labor on a 3,500 acre row crop farm. Upo n graduation from theagricultural program, Y OA s are m oved to one of three institutions whe re programming isavailable that will best m eet their needs (the Wateree River, T renton and Turbeville CorrectionalInstitutions). Special needs Y OA s (who require a regional medical center's care, or who are not

18



20/89

I

I

capable of hn cti on ing in the general population because of psychological problems or mentalretardation) may be housed at either the Broad River or Lee Correctional Centers. All YOAs areprovided educ ational programming, physical and m ental health care, and access to religiousservices/instruction.

Currently, each week a cohort of approximately 34 YOAs enters into SCDC. Eachcohort, known as a "platoon", will pass through reception and evaluation, the BTU, and theagricultural program a s a group. Accordingly, each week a platoon of approximately 34 YOAswill graduate from the agricultural program. At that point the mem bers of a platoon are sent asindividuals to an ap propriate treatment program.

Program ImplementationAn im plementation and process evaluation was con ducted between 1997 and 1999.The

purp ose of that evaluation was to describe the CRA 's implem entation - that is, to describe theprocess by which the program operated. To that end, the following evaluation research questionwas posed : Does the combination of activities, facilities, personnel and administrativearrangements that constitute the CR A seem to lead to achievement of its treatment objectives?An answer to this question is a necessary first step tow ards an evaluation of program outcomes.

Th e evaluation of the 20 months o f CRA operations involved qualitative documentationand mon itoring of the program. To that end, two types of research activities were carried out: 1)field o bservations of program a ctivities to determine if the p rogram w as being delivered asproposed, and 2) in-depth interviews with relevant stakeh olders to d etermine programaccomplishments and implementation problems and solutions.

19



21/89

II

I

Th e follow ing stakeholders were interviewed: the SCDC administrator responsible for theprogram w hen it ope ned ; the ass ociate warden at the Turbeville Correctional Institutionresponsible for the program; the SCDC administrator at the Wateree Correctional Institutionrespon sible for coordina ting the random assignm ent procedures and for the transition of selectedYO As to the CR A; the original and current CRA director; the head of treatment at the CRA ;CR A program counse lors; SCDC security staff assigned to the program; ex-employees of theprogram; and, adm inistrators in the agencies responsible for the aftercare portion of the program .

Th e findings of the implementation evaluation were presented to N IJ on May 1 1, 1999 ina final report titled "Evaluation of the South Carolina Residential Substance Abuse TreatmentProgram for State Prisoners" and established the context for the present study. The m ajorfindings, in short, are discussed below.

CRA StaJ Training ProgramFour week s of pre-service training were provided to the CR A staff before the program

began. The first week o f pre-service training was spent at the S outh Carolina Criminal JusticeAcademy w here the C RA staff underwent S CDC 's new em ployee (non-guard) trainingcurriculum. The next three w eeks of training took place at the Tu rbeville CorrectionalInstitution. The first week of Turbeville training w as delivered by program experts fromCiviGenics who provided a b ackground on the cognitive behavioral side of the CR A and on thelogic and operations of TC s. The second week of T urbeville training w as spent on the standardTurbeville Correctional Institution new em ployee training curriculum. The final week oftraining w as spent on CR A o perations, procedures, roles and responsibilities.

20



22/89

I

Delivery of Treatment ProgrammingThe field o bservations of program activities were scheduled to cover all days o f the week

and bo th m orning and a fternoon activities. During all field observations, program activities we redelivered accordin g to program schedule, the content of the activities correspond ed to the type o factivity scheduled and w ere delivered by the app ropriate CRA staff memb ers.

Development of a CRA Management Information System an d In-House Evaluation Ca pacityTh e CR A is operated by CiviG enics, Inc., an experienced provider of residential

substance abuse treatment programs. The CRA is part o f a corporate system that requires thema intena nce of a co mpu terized database containing pertinent information on programparticipants, program staff, and program a ctivities. Consequently, the CR A has the ability tomon itor the type o f clients served and their progress within the program and t o conduct self-evaluation studies.

Development of a New CRA Case ManagementLnmate E valuation SystemIn the summer of 1998 the CR A introduced a new case managem ent system in which

CR A YO As must not only satisfy basic curriculum requirements, but must also accum ulate aminimum of 10 'points' each week in order to advance, o r "p hase up", throug h each program

level. Und er this system points are assigned by CR A staff based o n objective factors such asregular and punctual class attendance, cell upkeep , and the m eeting of basic behavioralstandards. Points can also be awarded to inm ates wh o display extraordinary leadership withinthe therapeutic com munity.

21



23/89

Development of Open Communication and a Cooperative Relationship Between the CRA Staffand the Administration of the Turbeville Correctional InstitutionDD Over time the CRA m anagement team and the adm inistration of the Turbevilleb Correctional Institution were able to establish good lines of comm unication and a cooperative

relationship. The result was the ability to discuss issues and, when possible, reach comprom isesand make chan ges in rules and procedures of both SCD C and the CRA.

BBbDDD11111111

b

II

I

22



24/89

111. METHODOLOGY

II

ResearchPurposeTh e principle objective of this evaluation was to determine if the Correctional Recovery

Academy (CRA) is an effective treatment m odality for male youthfbl offend ers wh o have aproblem with chemical dependency.Research Design

The condu cted research was an outcome evaluation of the C RA using a quasi-experimental design. A quasi-experimental design was utilized since true random assignmentwas not possible throughout the duration of the CR A program and follow-up period. Duringsome selection waves, the number o f treatment beds outnumbered eligible YOAs, consequently,all eligible subjects were assigned to the treatment group . The subjects selected for the treatmentgroup were com pared against a comparison group on program-relevant criterion measures.

Subjects in each o f the grou ps met sp ecific typ es of criteria related to their sentencingunder South Carolina's Youthfbl Offenders Act. For example, all subjects sentenced under thislaw are within the sam e age range (1 7 to 25 years), have similar criminal h istories, and receivedsome form of intensive programm ing. In addition, all eligible subjects were determined to havea chemical dependency problem using the S.A .S.S .I.'dur ing ntake and screening, and wererequired to meet certain medical and mental health qualifications as stipulated by the CRAprogram protocol.

Program effectiveness was then d etermined by com paring the treatment group (i.e., CRAgraduates) with a com parison group (i.e . , alternative intensive program graduates and CRA

23



25/89

II

I

remo vals) on important criterion measures, including subseq uent criminal activity and dru grelapse during a 12-month follow-up p eriod.Subject Selection to Treatment and Comparison Groups

Selection of subjects for the study was draw n from those m ales sentenced to the SouthCarolina Department of Correction (SCDC) under the Youthfhl Offenders Act (YO A) andsentenced to participate in a Youthfhl O ffender Intensification Program (Y OIP ). YOIP consistsof three p hases, including an institutional componen t (Phase 111), where program ming focu seseither on intensive education services or on intensive substance abuse treatment services (CRA).The study incorporated a quasi-experimental design with a sample that consists of two groups: 1)a treatment g roup and 2) a comparison group.

Offenders in the treatment group represent those male you th hl offenders whosucc essh lly completed Phases I and I1 of the Youthful Offender Intensification Program (YOIP),and during intake and assessm ent were determined to be chemically dependent based on theirSubstance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (S.A .S.S.I.) score and/or by clinical diagnosis. Foryouthful offenders who had a chemical dependency and who graduated from Phase 11, th eavailability of beds in the A ddictions Treatment Unit determined whether or not they we reassigned to the C RA p rogram, or an alternative intensive program.

Assignment to t he treatment program occurred in one of two w ays: 1) by randomassignment if the number of beds available is sm aller than the number of eligible programparticipants, or 2) by autom atic assignment if the n umber o f beds surpasses the number o feligible program participants. Treatm ent subjects we re also required to meet other programcriteria based on criminal history, behavior during previous incarcerations, and medical/mentalhealth qualifications. Th os e subjects assigned to the treatmen t group (CRA) in Phase I11

24



26/89

attended the C orrectional Recovery Academy program provided at the Addictions TreatmentUnit at Turbeville Correctional Institution.

Offenders in the comparison group matched subjects in the treatment group on th ecriteria and requiremen ts described above (e.g ., male youthfbl offender, S .A .S .S.I. score and/ordiagnos is, criminal history, medical and mental health restrictions). How ever, due to randomassignm ent and the availability of beds in the Addictions Treatment Unit, they instead wereassigned t o alternative intensive programm ing until their release from Ph ase 111.

Specrfrcation and Measurement of Program OutcomesThe principle aim of this outcome evaluation was to determine if the Correctional

Recovery Academy (CR A) wa s an effective form of treatment for youthfbl offenders, and morespecifically, if program participation had an effect on fbture behavior such as recidivism anddrug relapse.

CR A participation constituted the predictor or independent variable. In other words, areCR A participants and graduates less likely to recidivate and/or relapse than those w hoparticipated and g raduated from alternative intensive programming?

Definition of program effectiveness have relied on various measures, including relapse,attitudinal change, skill development and especially recidivism (MacKenzie and H ickman, 1998;Shover, 1979). The evaluation gathered data on several criterion m easures to determine theeffectiveness of the CR A program. We agree with MacK enzie and Hickman (1 998:5), w horecommend defining recidivism using multiple measures in order to capture "a more com pletepicture of program effectiveness.. 'I .

25



27/89

IDBBB Individu al difference amon g subjects can also affect program outcomes, o r interact withB prog ram participation to affect outcomes. This evaluation collected data on variables believed toD) intervene in the relationship between CR A participation and the criterion measures . Data were also collected on dem ograph ic measures related to family characteristics, such as age, race/ethnicb) backgrounds, and residence (urbadrural)DDD1Bb1bbB111111111I

26



28/89

IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGSTh e central purpose o f this study was to determine the imp act of the Correctional

Recovery Academy (CRA) on you thfil offenders with substance addictions in the state of SouthCarolina. Several research questions were the focus of the current analysis: (1 ) Was theCorrectional Recovery Academy effective in reducing drug use relapse during the follow-upperiod in the comm unity? and (2) Was the Correction al Reco very Academy effective in reducingrecidivism du ring the follow-up period in the community? In addition, the analysis explored theissue of what factors, if any, were predictive of failure for yo ut hh l offenders while on parolesupervision.

Data for this study were obtained from the S outh Carolina Department o f Corrections(SCD C) and the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon s Services(SCD PPP S). Participants for the study were identified from the information system of SCDCbased on the fact that they had graduated from Pha se I1programming by a predetermined date(March 1 , 1997) and were eligible for the C orrectional Recovery A cademy (CRA) using a set ofprogram criteria. In addition to graduating from Ph ase I1 programming, YO As also had to havean identifiable chemical dependency (according to a S.A .S.S.I. Score, a TC U Score, and or aclinical diagnosis), be a nonviolent offender, and have no concurrent or consecutive sentences.Information on convictions, offender movement, infractions, and programming was receivedfrom SCDC.

On ce the initial list of study participants wa s obtained from SCD C, identifier informationon each case wa s provided to SCDPP PS so that we cou ld obtain data related to the communitysupervision of study participants during the follow-up period. SCD PPPS provided data forsubjects on drug testing, employment, recidivism and revocation. In som e instances YOA s were

27



29/89

determined not to be app ropriate for the study and w ere dropped because they did not en terPhase I11 programming (CRA o r comparison treatment) on or before June 1, 2000. This date wasused as a cut-off for inclusion into the study bec ause of the estimated length of the third phaseand the necessity o f having a 12-month follow-up period for each participant.

Several type s of analytic statistical techniques were used t o address the researchquestions. We began o ur analysis by sum marizing the variables of interest using descriptivestatistics. W e summarized the data for the sam ple as a whole and then sum marized the data forboth treatmen t and control grou ps separately. Next, w e explored the relationships betwee n thespecified variables, exam ining the degree, direction, form and significance, and statisticalindepend ence between each viiiiable a d roup mm bers hip (Cuzzort & Vrettos, 1996). Whereappropriate, a t-test, chi-square or gamm a was used to determine the natu re of the associationbetween two variables. In order to determine whether or not the Correctional RecoveryAcademy w as effective in reducing recidivism and relapse during the parole period, t-tests wereused to compare the treatment and control group on the two dependent variables. Finally,logistic regression wa s used to exam ine what, if any, independent variables we re predictive offailure during the follow-up period.

FindingsSam ple Characteristics

A total of 303 offenders comprised the overall sample. Approximately 53% (n= 160) ofoffenders in the sample participated in the CR A program and the remaining 47% (n= 143)received other types of programming during Phase 111. The entire sample was comprised ofmales. As indicated in Ta ble 1, almost 72% (n= 218) of offenders in the o verall sample werenonwhite, while 28% (n= 85) were white, and 94% of those in the sample were single (n = 252).

28



30/89

Th e highest level of education obtained by offen ders ranged from 5'h grade to som e college.Approxim ately, 3 1% (n= 75) had at least a 9* grade-level education, followed by 24 % (n= 59)wh o had a 10* grade-level education, and 23% (n= 56) who had at the minimum an 1 th rade-level education , In addition, almost 41% of offenders received a GED. Also, the average age ofoffenders at the time of their release to parole was 2 1.08 years (s= 2.29; range= 17-29).

W e next separa ted the sam ple into treatment vs. control group, and summarized theresults for each demographic variable. The CRA g roup comprised 53% (n= 160) of the overallsample. As reported in Tab le 1, the CRA group was 77% nonwhite, 23% white, and waspredominantly single (94%, n= 133). The distribution for the educational level of the CR Agroup , for the most part, mirrored that of the overall sample. Approximately, 32% (n= 42) of theCR A samp le had a 9* grade-level educ ation, followed by 28% wh o had a 10* grade-leveleducation and 22% wh o had at least an 1 l* grade-level education. In addition, almost one-third(32% or n= 36) of the CRA sample received a GED. The average age of the participants in thetreatment grou p was 20 .64 years (s= 2.10, range= 17-27).

The Control grou p comprised 47% (n= 143) of the overall sam ple. A significantly largerpercentage of the Control group as compared t o the CRA group w as white (x2= 4.08, p< .05).Nearly 34% (n= 48) of the offenders in the comparison group were wh ite and 66% (n= 95) werenonwhite. The Control gro up also has a slightly higher level of education. As reported in Table2, 29% (n= 33) of offenders in this sam ple had a gthgrade-level education , followed by 20% (n=23) who had a lO * grade-level education and 24% (n= 27) who had an 1l* grade-leveleducation. When a high school level of education was considered, fourteen percent (n= 16) ofthe Control group completed the 12* grade, whereas 5% (n = 7) of the CRA group completed thislevel of education. Th e comparison gro up w as significantly more likely to have completed a

29



31/89

GE D as well. Fifty-percent (n= 5 1) of the Control group reportedly completed a GED (x2= 6.79,p< .05) . The Control group, on average, was approximately one-year older when compared tothe C RA group; they were an average of 21.60 years of age (t' .57, p< ,001).

Table 1. Demograph ic Information for Overall Sample and GroupsVariableRace WhiteNonwhiteMarital Status

Common LawDivorcedMarriedSeparatedSingleEducation Level

5" Grade6" Grade7" Grade8" Grade9" Grade10" Grade11" Grade12" Gradesome collegeGED NoYe s

Number of ConvictionsMeanSDRanee

* p < .05** p < .001

Overall CRA Group Control GroupSample (n= 160) (n= 143)28.1% (85) 23.1% (3 7) 33.6% (48)*71.9 (218) 76.9% (123) 66.4% (9 5)

1.5% ( 4) 1.4% ( 2) 1.6% ( 2)2.4% ( 3).1% ( 3) __- - -___1.5% ( 4) 1.4% ( 2) 1.6% ( 2)1.9% ( 5 ) 2.8% ( 4) .8% ( 1)94.0% (252) 94.3% (133) 93.7% (119).4% ( 1).4% ( 1)2 .9% ( 7 )8.6% ( 21)30.6% (75)

22.9% ( 56)9.4% (23).8 % ( 2)

24.1% ( 59)

.8 % ( 1).8 % ( 1)3.8% ( 5)7.6%( 10)32.1% (42)27.5% (36)22.1% ( 29)5.3% ( 7)_--- -__-

---- ----__-- ----l . 8 % ( 2 )9 .6%( 11)

20.2% (23)23.7% (27)14.0% ( 16)1.8% ( 2)

28.9% (33)

59.2% (126) 67.6% (75) 50.0% (51)*40.8% (87) 32.4% (36) 50.0% ( 5 1 )

2 1.08 20.64 21.60**2.29 2.10 2.4117 - 29 17 - 27 18 -2 91.81 1.78 1.841.18 1.06 1.301 -1 1 1 - 7 1 - 1 1

30



32/89

Phase 111ProgrammingPhase I11 program ming represents, for many youthful offenders, the final stage in the

correctional institution process. As discussed earlier in the report, upon gradu ation from Phase11, YOA youthfbl offenders proceed to one of several Phase I11 programs and facilities. Forsubjects in the current study, there was an opportunity to be placed in the Correctional RecoveryAcademy (CRA) or one of three others: (1) Thinking for Change, (2) Structured Programm ing(e.g. , cognitive restructuring , substance abuse education, criminal thinking, pre-releaseplanning), or the ( 3) Accelerated Academic Program (AA P).

Table 2 provides sum mary information for each Phase I11 program and the number andpercentage of offenders who received som e lw ei of services from each program. In some cases(10% or n= 29), youthful offenders had been placed in two different Phase I11 programs at som epoint in their incarceration. In order to see who received more than one type of program mingduring Phase 111, we divided the overall sample into the two groups, C RA and Control, andexamined sum mary information for each of the programs. As reported in Table 2, 53% (n= 160)of the overall sam ple was assigned to the CR A program, or a combination of C RA and o ne of theother programs. For example, 9% (n= 15) of CR A participants also received treatment from theThinking for Change Program and 1% (n= 2) of CRA participants also obtained treatmentthrough Structured Programs. Th e remaining 47% (n= 143) of YOA s were placed in one of th eother three comparison group programs, o r a combination of them . Approxim ately 8% (n= 12 )offenders in the control gro up received treatment from multiple Phase I11 programs (excludingCRA). Fifty percent (n= 71) of the com parison group received treatment from the Thinking forChange Program, and another 43% (n= 62) obtained treatment through other Structured

31



33/89

Programs, and 15 % (n= 2 1) of offenders in the com parison group received treatm ent through theAccelerated Academ ic Program.

Table 2. Descriptive Information for Phase 3 ProgrammingTypes of Programming at Phase 3Total Num ber of Phase 3 Programs

12

Correctional Recovery AcademyNoYesThinking for Change ProgramNo

Y C S

Structured ProgramsNoYesAccelerated Academic Program ( A M )NoYes

Overall Sample CRA Group Control Group(n= 160) (n= 143)274 (90.4%) 143 (89.4%) 131 (91.6%)29 ( 9.6Xo) 17 (10.6%) 12 (8.4%)

217 (71.6%) 145 (90.60/,> 72 (50.3%)56 (28.4%) 15 (9.4%) 71 (49.7%)

239 (78.9%) 158 (98.8%) 81 (56.6%)64 (21.1Yo) 2 1.3%) 62 (43.4%)

282 (93.1%) 160 (100%) 122 (85.3%)21 (6.9%) 0 (----) 21 (14.7%)

Progra m Outcomes During Phase 111ProgrammingIn addition to w hether or not you tffil offenders completed Phase I11 programming, we

also considered other types of program outcom es including those of reassignmen t, setback,and recycle. Sum mary information about program outcom es are reported Table 3 . There werea sizeable numb er of cases with missing information on these measu res. Offenders werereassigned to other places in the South Carolina Department of Corrections system if it wasdetermined that they were inapp ropriate for the CR A. In a small num ber of CRA cases (n= 3)this occurred after they had already started the program . Offenders received setbacks as a

32



34/89

mean s of addressing disciplinary problem s. Offende rs who received this we re usually setback

Variable

ReassignmentNoYesMissing

either 15 or 30 days depending on the nature of the disciplinary problem. Acco rding to the

Overall Sample CRA Group Control Group(n = 303) (n= 160) (n= 143)

189 (62.4%) 74 (46.3%) 115 (80.4%)104 (34.3%) 83 (51.9%) 21 (14.7%)10 (3.3?0) 3 ( 19?0) 7 (4 .9% )

results presented in Ta ble 3, 35% of the offenders (n= 107) received at least one setback, while30% of offenders (n= 92 ) did not. When the grou ps were considered separately, approxim ately34% of the CR A group had at the minimum one setback and 14% did not. In the case of th ecom parison group, 36 % of the offenders had a setback and 49% did not. A significantrelationship was found between grou p membership and whether or not the offender received asetback during Phase I11 programming (x2= 15 .76 , p< .001), with C RAs more likely to receivea setback than those in the comp arison group. A recycle occurred less often with 4% (n = 12 )of the larger samp!e receiving one , while 4% (n= 7 ) =fC R 4 group offenders and 4% (n= 5) ofControl group offenders receiving a recycle.

SetbackNoYesMissingRecycleNoYesMissingInfractionsMeanSD

92 (30.4 %) 22 (13.8 %) 70 (49.00/0)**107 (35.3%) 55 (34.4% ) 52 (36.4Yo)104 (34.3%) 83 (51.9%) 21 (14.7%)

187 (61.7%) 70 (43.8%) 117 (81.8%)104 (34.3yo) 83 (51.9yo) 21 (14.7%)12 ( 4.0yo) 7 ( 4.4yo) 5 (3 .5 % )

1.143.06 .942.74 1.373.38Range I 0 -26 0 - 19 0 - 2 6* * sigmficant at p< ,001

33



35/89

W e also conside red the number of disciplinary infractions received by the offend ers inou r study and those results are presented in T able 3. Overall, offenders received on average 1 .14(s= 3.06, range= 0 to 26) infractions during the course of Phase I11programm ing. Offenders inthe C RA group received on average .94 (s= 2.74 , range= 0-19) infractions durin g the phase w hileoffenders in the Control group received 1.3 7 (s= 3.38, range= 0-26) infractions during this time.W e com pared both gro ups with regards to the number of infractions received during their Phase3 programming and the results from the t-test analysis indicated no significant differencebetween the group s (t= 1.23, p= ,220). Next, w e examined the types and prevalence ofinfractions received and this information is summarized in Ta ble 4. As reported in th e table,there were a total of 34 1 infractions received by offenders during their time in Phase I11programm ing. Sexual misconduct was the most frequently occurring infraction at 17% (n= 58),followed by the use o f obscene, vulgar, o r profane language, which was received by 12% (n= 42 )of offenders. Ten percent (n= 34) of offend ers received disciplinary infractions for damaging o rdestroying property (less than $50 in value), and another 9% (n= 3 1) of offen ders receiveddisciplinary infractions for ref k in g or failing to obey orders.

34



36/89

Table 4. Descriptive Information for Infractions Received D uring Phase I11 ProgrammingType of Infraction

Sexual MisconductUse of Obscene, Vulgar, Profane Language ando r GesturesDamage, Destroy, Deface Property Less than $50.00Refusing or Failing to Obey OrdersUse, Possession, Narc, Unauthorized Use of a PrescriptionOut of PlaceThreatening to inflictharm on employeeStriking anEmployee with/ without weaponPossession of contrabandStriking an nmate with/ without a weaponFighting without a WeaponRefusing to Attend Compulsory ProgramDamage, Destroy, Deface Property Greater than 950.00Use or Possession of any Intoxicating InhalantInciting / Creating a DisturbanceThreatening to InflictHarm on InmateMutilationStealingRiotUse or Possession of Tattoo ParaphernaliaCreating Unnecessary NoisePossession of a weaponRefusing to WorkFailure to WorkMutinySolicit EmployeeAbuse of PrivilegesSafety RegulationsViolations WritelPost Institutional RulesDisrespectEscape with/ without Force

58 (17.0%)42 (12.3%)34 ( lO .OO / )31 (9.1%)23 (6.7%)21 (6.2%)19 (5.6%)18 (5.3%)16 (4.7%)14 (4.1%)13 (3.8%)12 (3.5%)

8 (2.3%)4 (1.8%)4 (1.8%)3 ( .9Yo)3 (.9%)2 (.6%)2 (.6%)2 (.6%)2 (.6%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1(.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)1 (.3%)341*

* This otal represents the number of infractions recorded by the South Carolina Department of Corrections for thestudy participants.

35

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


37/89

I

Community SupervisionDa ta for several measures concerning the offender during their parole supervision were

also collected as part of the study. Most of the YOA offenders were released upon com pletion oftheir Phase I11 programm ing, however, almost 8% (n= 23 , 1 1 of which are CRA group membersand 12 are Control gro up m embers) of them remained incarcerated during the study period andwere not released. As a result, no follow-up data were available for this g roup of Y OAoffenders.

Upon completion of Phase I11 programming and after review by appro priate officials inthe South Carolina Department o f Corrections, YOAs in the current study were released into thecomm unity under parole supervision in 4 1 counties in the state of South Carolina. Informationon the cou nties and the number of o ffenders released to these jurisdictions is sum marized inTab le 5. As ind icated in the table, C harleston County parole authorities, by far, supervised themost numb er of offenders from the study at 19% (n= 53). The counties of Greenville (6% or n=16), Spartanburg (5% or n= 15), and York (5% or n= 15) supervised the next highest number ofyouthful offenders during th e studys follow-up period.

A small number of the YOAs (12% o r n= 33) wh o were released to parole were involvedin several comm unity-based corrections programs throughout the 12 month follow-up period.Table 6 presents summary information about the type of com munity program and the number o foffende rs participating in the program . As indicated in Table 6, many o f the offenders who wereinvolved in com munity programs w ere either in home detention (n = 16) or electronic monitoring(n= 11). The remaining offenders were assigned to a Restitution Center (n = 4) and a Comm unityControl Center (n= 2). Finally, information was obtained about the employm ent status ofoffenders during the follow-up period. Approximately, 63% of the YO As (n= 177) who were

36



38/89

released into the com munity were employed at som e point du ring the follow-up period, and 37%(n = 103) we re not. The distribution for the overall sample remained consistent when eac hoffender group wa s considered. In both cases, 63% of the offenders in the treatment g roup andthe control grou p had been employed at som e point during the follow-up period.

Table 5. Descriptive Information for Counties Su pervising YOA Parolees

COUNTYAikenAndersonBarnwellBeaufortBerkeleyCharlestonCherokeeChesterChesterfieldClarendonColletonDarlingtonDillonDorchesterEdgefieldFairfieldFlorenceGeorgetownGreenvilleGreenwood

n= 280

f763612534232512410

24112166

("/.I( 2 . 1 % )(1 .1% )(2 .1%)(4 .3YO)(18 .9% )( 1.4%)( .7%)(1 .1% )( .7%)(4 .3% )

( .7%)'(3 .9%)( .7%)(2 .1% )

( 2 .5% )

(1.8%)(1 .4% )(3 .6% )(1 .4% )

(5.7%)

COUNTYHorryJasperKershawLancasterLaurensLeeLexingtonMcCormickMarionMarlboroNewberryOconeeOrangeburgPickenshchlandSaludaSpartanburgSumterUnionWilliamsburgYork

f ("/o)

1 ( .4%)10 (3.6%)6 (2 .1%)4 (1 .4%)4 (1.4%)3 (1 .1%)5 (1 .8%)1 ( .4% )5 (1 .8%)8 (2 .9%)3 (1 .1%)1 ( .4% )7 (2.5%)4 (1 .4% )7 (2 .5% )1 ( . 4 % )15 (5 .4% )2 (.7%)3 (1 .1% )5 (1 .8% )15 (5 .4%)

37



39/89

I

Variable

I

Overall Sample CR A Group Control Group

Home Detention(n = 280) (n= 149) (n= 131)

16 9 7Electronic Monitoring 11 6 5

2estitution CenterCommunity Control Center 2 1 I

4 2

OutcomeMeasuresTh e first research qu estion addressed in the curren t study asked if the C orrectional

Recovery A cademy w as effective in reducing the drug use relapse during the follow-up period inthe com mu nity. Da ta were obtained from the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole,and Pardons for each offender released into the com munity concerning the prevalence and resultsof drug tests. Many of the o ffenders released onto parole were given drug tests as part of theircommunity supervision. Only 5% (n= 14) of the offende rs released on parole were not drugtested during their comm unity supervision. Seven of the offenders wh o received no drug testswere in the CRA grou p and the remaining 7 offenders were in the Control group. The results ofdata co llected on drug testing are summarized in Table 7. Fo r the entire samp le, offenders weredrug tested jus t ov er five times (0 = 5.49, s= 4.08, range= 0-22) during the follow-up period.Da ta for drug tests were considered next for each group of subjects. Offenders in the CRA grou phad, on average, a slightly higher num ber of drug tests (0 = 5.62, s= 4.18) when compared withoffenders in the C ontrol group (0 = 5.32, s= 3.96). Results from a t-test analysis, however

38



40/89

indicated that there were no significant difference between the CR A group and the C ontrol grou pas to the total numb er of drug tests provided to subjects (t= -.61, p= ,546).

Table 7. Results for Drug Tests During Parole Sup ervisionVariable

Number of Drug TestsMeanSD= w e

Positive Drug TestsNoYesNumber of Positive Drug TestsMeanSD

RangeProportion of Drug Tests-PositiveMeanSD

Range

Overall Sample CRA Group Control Group(n = 280) (n= 149) (n= 131)

5.494.080 - 2 2

108 (39%)173 (61%)

1.621.980 - 13

.35.35.oo to 1.00

5.624.180 - 2 25.323.960 - 15

52 (35%) 56 (43%)97 (65%) 75 (57%)

1.792.050 - 1 31.421.890 - 1 1

.37 .33.34 .35.oo to 1.00 .oo to 1.00

W e next exam ined the numb er of positive dru g tests received by th e subjects in the study.As reported in Table 7, the overall sample had an av erage of 1 .62 (s= 1.98, range= 0-13) positivedrug tests during the 12-month follow-up period. Subjects in the CRA grou p had an average of1.79 (s= 2.05) positive tests, while su bjects in the C ontrol group had an average of 1.42 (s= 1.89)positive drug tests. A t-test w as used to determine if the difference in the average number ofpositive dru g tests for both group s was significant. Th e results indicate that there was nosignificant difference in the number of positive drug tests received by CR A and Control groupsubjects (t= -1.55, p= ,122). This finding suggests that the CRA program did not have a

39



41/89

I

measu rable impact on the subsequent use of drugs by offenders while under co mm unitysupervision when compared to the control group.

The final way in which w e explored the relationship between program ming at Phase I11and sub sequent drug use during the follow-up period w as to consider the differences in theproportion o f drug tests given found to be positive by offender group. The proportion o f totalnum ber of drug tests that were positive was calculated and is summ arized in Tab le 8. For theoverall sample, 3 5% of all drug tests given to offend ers resulted in positive tests. When offendergroups w ere considered separately, 37% of the drug tests for the C RA grou p w ere positive and33% of drug tests for Control group were po sitive. Consistent with the prior results concerningdrug tes ts for both groups, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of theproportion of total dru g tests that resulted in positive results (t= - .99, p= ,326).

The second outcome measure considered in the current study involved failure, which wasdefined in terms of recidivism and/or revocation during the follow-up period. For offenders wh owe re released on parole, we obtained information about changes in supervision status, includingrevocation and recidivism . Tw o strategies were used to analyze the issue of recidivism andrevocation. First, offenders were identified as either failing or succeeding during the parolefollow-up period. A pproxim ately 17% (n= 48) of all the YO As who were released onto parolefailed within the first 12 mon ths. Failure was then considered separately for offenders in eachgroup. For the CRA group, 17% (n= 25 ) of the o ffenders failed within the year a fter theirrelease, while 18% (n = 23) of the offenders in the Control group failed within the year after theirrelease. Further analysis of the relationship between failure while on parole and involvement intreatment indicates no significant relationship between both of these me asures (x2= ,053, p=

40



42/89

8 17). Th e results suggest that offenders' involvement in the CRA program w as not related to

Variable

whether o r not the YOA succeeded during th e 12-month follow-up period

Overall Sample CRA Group Control Group

Th e analysis also considered failure in a second way, th e number of days until failure.

FailureNoYesNumber of Days to Failure"

For those YOAs who failed during the follow-up period, the number of days between the start

(n= 280) (n= 149) (n= 131)230 (82.7%) 124 (83.2%) 106 (82.2%)48 (17.3%) 25 (16.8%) 23 (17.8%)

date of parole and the closure date of parole was calculated. The average number of days untilfailure for the overall gro up was 253 days (s = 70.8 5, range= 95-364). We next wanted tocompare both offender groups on this outcome m easure. We found that for the CR A failures, ittook an average of 281 days (s= 71.6 5, range= 101-355) to fail, and for the Con trol failures, ittook an average of 223 days (s= 57.48 , range= 101-355) to fail. Resu lts from the t-test analysisindicated that th e average iiiimber of days until failure for the C M roup is significantly longerthan the average numb er o f days for the C ontrol group, thereby suggesting that the treatmentsignificantly dimin ishes the onset time o f failure for the C RA g roup when com pared to theControl group (t= -3.066, p=.004).

Table 8. Failure Under Parole S upervision

MeanSDNRange

253.0270.854895- 364

280.7271.6525101-355

222.91*57.4823101-355

a calculated for only those YOAs who failed** sigruficant at p< .001

41



43/89

Predictors of Failure while Under SupervisionNext we explored th e relationship between several of the independent variables and

failure during the follow-up period in the comm unity. Logistic regression was used to determineif any of the ind epend ent variables we re significant predictors of failure wh ile on parolesupervision. The independent variables of CRA involvement, race of the offender, total numberof d rug tests, highest education level obtained, age of the offender, employm ent, number ofconvictions, the occurrence of infractions during Phase I11 programming, and whether or not theoffender tested positive for drug s while under community superv ision we re all specified in thelogistic regression model. Th e results for the logistic regression analysis are presented in Table9. Forty-five cases were dropped from this portion of the analysis due to missing information onat least one of th e independent measures; therefore the results were based on 235 subjects.

The specified regression model had a -2 Log likelihood value of 167 .76 and wasstatistically s ignificant (chi-square model= 40.21 , p= .OOO), with an R2 value of 0.1 6. Therefore,the factors included in the model exp lained only 16% of the variation in the outcome measure.The use of logistic regression permits us to examine the individual influence of a factor on th elikelihood of failing controlling for the other factors. As indicated in Tab le 9, involvement in theCRA program (b= ,044 , p= .913 ) wa s not a significant predictor of success or failure during thefollow-u p period. If involvement in the treatment program had a significant influence onrecidivism and revoca tion, then one would ex pect to find that this measure would be a significantpredictor of the outcom e measure. Controlling for all other factors in the m odel, whether or notoffenders received CR A treatment program ming o r alternative Phase I11 programming was notinfluential in their success under com munity supervision. Only two of the independent variableswere significant predictors of whether o r not the YOA failed w hile under com munity supervision

42



44/89

I

durin g the follow-up pe riod, total number o f drug te

outcome evaluation of the south carolina residential substance abuse treatment program for state...

Documents