The purpose of this project was to develop a collaborative research partnership between Temple University’s Center for Public Policy and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), with a demonstration research project that included three main elements: (a) a descriptive assessment of drug and alcohol programming (through program surveys and a 1-day symposium with treatment staff members), including the identification of critical service delivery components and goals; (b) an intensive on-site process evaluation of representative programs at two institutions; and (c) the preparation of an outcome evaluation research design on the basis of analyses and discussion between Temple and the DOC. This article summarizes critical stages in the development of the partnership; reactions from Steering Committee members and drug treatment staff members; results from a survey of 118 drug treatment programs at 24 state prisons; major findings from process evaluation; and implications for drug treatment programming, policy, and evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A. (1995, October). Assessing program elements for risk reduction: The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) . Paper presented at the Research to Results Conference, Ottawa, Canada.
2.
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis . Criminology, 28, 369-404 .
3.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, action, and learning: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
4.
Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2001). Prisoners in 2000 (NCJ-188207). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics .
5.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
6.
Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2001). Criminology and Public Policy: A new journal of the American Society of Criminology . Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 1-3 .
7.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York: Springer-Verlag .
8.
Feller, I., & King, M. R. (1981). Science and technology organizations in state legislatures: An analysis and study of operating experiences (Final report to the National Science Foundation, Grant No. ISP-7917396). State College: Pennsylvania State University .
9.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
10.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) answer form (4th ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University .
11.
Gore, A. (1993). The Gore report on reinventing government. New York: Basic Books .
12.
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Risk factors that predict dropout from corrections-based treatment for drug abuse . The Prison Journal, 79, 411-430 .
13.
Inciardi, J. A. (1995). The therapeutic community: An effective model for corrections-based drug abuse treatment. In K. C. Haas & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), The dilemmas of punishment: Readings in contemporary corrections (pp. 406-417). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland .
14.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders . Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278 .
15.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Lockwood, D., Hooper, R. M., & Wald, B. M. (1992). Obstacles to the implementation and evaluation of drug treatment programs in correctional settings: Reviewing the Delaware KEY experience. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails (pp. 176-191). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office .
16.
Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for inprison therapeutic community treatment in Texas . The Prison Journal, 79, 321-333 .
17.
Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
18.
Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision (NCJ 157642). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice .
19.
Lipton, D. S., Falkin, G. P., & Wexler, H. K. (1992). Correctional drug abuse treatment in the United States: An overview. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails (pp. 8-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office .
20.
Lipton, D. S., & Pearson, F. S. (1998, November). The effectiveness of correctional treatment revisited: Preliminary meta-analytic findings from the CDATE study . Paper presented at the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy meeting, Washington, DC.
21.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., & Inciardi, J. (1995). Assessment of a multistage therapeutic community for drug-involved offenders . Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 27, 109-116 .
22.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare . The Prison Journal, 79, 294-320 .
23.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
24.
Mumola, C. J. (1999, January). Substance abuse and treatment, state and federal prisoners, 1997 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ-172871). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs .
25.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1981). Drug abuse treatment in prisons (Treatment research report series). Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Government Printing Office .
26.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (NIH-99-4180). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse .
27.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (1996). Treatment protocol effectiveness study. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy .
28.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (1999). Therapeutic communities in correctional settings: The prison based TC standards development project (Final report of Phase II, NCJ-179365). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy .
29.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin .
30.
Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
31.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research . Crime & Delinquency, 41, 100-131 .
32.
Pearson, F. S., & Lipton, D. S. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections based treatments for drug abuse . The Prison Journal, 79, 384-410 .
33.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2002a, January). Monthly institutional profile as of January 31, 2002. Camp Hill: Author .
34.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2002b, January). Monthly population report as of January 31, 2002. Camp Hill: Author .
35.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2001, February). Philosophy and framework: Alcohol and other drug treatment. Camp Hill: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Bureau of Inmate Services .
36.
Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., & Edens, J. F. (1998). Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence disorders among prison inmates . American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24, 573-587 .
37.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Warner .
38.
Petersilia, J. (1991). Policy relevance and the future of criminology—The American Society of Criminology 1990 presidential address . Criminology, 29, 1-15 .
39.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1989). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
40.
Schachter, H. (1995). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: Two models for improving government performance . Public Administration Review, 55(6), 530-537 .
41.
Simpson, D. D. (1994). TCU/PTA forms manual: Texas prison-based treatment assessment (PTA project). Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research .
42.
Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (1998). TCU data collection forms for correctional residential treatment. Available at http://www.ibr.tcu.edu
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
45.
Welsh, W. N. (1993). Ideologies and incarceration: Legislator attitudes toward jail overcrowding . The Prison Journal, 73, 46-71 .
46.
Welsh, W. N. (1995). Counties in court: Jail overcrowding and court-ordered reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press .
47.
Welsh, W. N. (2000a). Building an effective research collaboration between the Center for Public Policy at Temple University and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Final report, Vol. 1: Development of the research partnership and results from a survey of drug and alcohol programs. Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for Public Policy .
48.
Welsh, W. N. (2000b). Building an effective research collaboration between the Center for Public Policy at Temple University and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Final report, Vol. 2: Evaluability assessment and process evaluation of prison-based drug and alcohol programs. Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for Public Policy .
49.
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (1999). Criminal justice policy & planning. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson .
50.
Welsh, W. N., Harris, P., & Jenkins, P. (1996). Reducing over representation of minorities in juvenile justice: Development of community-based programs in Pennsylvania . Crime & Delinquency, 42(1), 76-98 .
51.
Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California . The Prison Journal, 79, 321-333 .
52.
Wilkins, L. (1996). Action and inaction in social research and policy . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 16-27 .
53.
Zajac, G. (1997). Reinventing government and reaffirming ethics: Implications for organizational development in the public sector . Public Administration Quarterly, 20(4), 385-404 .
54.
Zajac, G. (2002). Knowledge creation, utilization and public policy: How do we know what we know in criminology? Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 251-254 .
55.
Zajac, G., & Al-Kazemi, A. (1997). Reinventing government and redefining leadership: Implications for personnel management in government . Public Productivity & Management Review, 20(4), 372-383 .
56.
Zajac, G., & Comfort, L. K. (1997). The spirit of watchfulness: Public ethics as organizational learning . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 541-570 .
