Addiction (1999) 94(6), 833-842

RESEARCH REPORT

Prison-based substance abuse treatment,residential aftercare and recidivism

MATTHEW L. HILLER, KEVIN KNIGHT & D. DWAYNESIMPSON

Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University, Texas, USA

AbstractAims. This study examined the impact of residential aftercare on recidivism following prison-based treatmentfor drug-involved offenders. Design. A matched group quasi-experimental design. Survival regressionanalyses were used to predict time until rearrest. A logistic regression model was constructed for predictingaftercare completion. Setting. A 9-month in-prison therapeutic community (ITC) and several community-based transitional therapeutic communities (TTCs). Participants. Data were collected from 396 maleinmates (293 treated, 103 untreated). Measurements. Background information (gender, ethnicity, age,education level, criminal history and risk for recidivism) was abstracted from the state criminal justicedatabases and a structured interview led by clinical staff. During treatment process measures were based oninmate self-ratings of their counselors, program and peers. A post-treatment interview conducted by fieldresearch staff assessed satisfaction with transitional aftercare. Post-release recidivism was based on state-main-tained computerized criminal history records. Findings. ITC treatment, especially when followed byresidential aftercare, was effective for reducing post-release recidivism rates. Lower satisfaction with tran-sitional aftercare treatment was associated with not completing the residential phase of community-basedaftercare. Conclusions. Corrections-based treatment policy should emphasize a continuum of care model(from institution to community) with high quality programs and services.

Introduction tions in state courts in 1994 were for drugDrugs and crime are inextricably interrelated offenses (12% possession, 19% trafficking;(Ball, Shaffer & Nurco, 1983; Nurco, Hanlon & Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). Furthermore,Kinlock, 1991). Not only are drug trafficking the number of drug-involved offenders in prisonsand possession illegal, but many other offenses and under community supervision (i.e. pro-are also drug-related (e.g. burglary to obtain bation and parole) has increased rapidly sincemoney to purchase drugs) or are committed 1980 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996). Forwhile an individual is under the influence of example, about 7% of newly sentenced s.tatedrugs. In the United States, 68% of new prisoners in 1980 were incarcerated for drugarrestees test positive on a urine screen for one offenses, increasing to 32% by 1990 (Bureau ofor more illicit drugs (National Institute of Jus- Justice Statistics, 1996). Recent estimates, biiscdtice, 1996). Thirty-one per cent of felony convic- on offense record and self-reported drug use

Correspondence to: Matthew L. Hillcr PhD, Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University, TCLJBox 298740, Fon Worth, TX 76129, USA. e-mail: www.ibr.tcu.edu or IBR@teu.edu

Submitted 4th May 1998; initial review completed 31st August 1998; final version accepted 20th October 1998.

0965-2140/99/060833-10 S9.50 © Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Carfax Publishing, Taylor & Francis Ltd

834 Matthew L. Hiller et al.

history, suggest that as many as 80% of those instate and federal prisons and in local jails mighthave a problem with alcohol or illicit drugs,resulting in the majority of correctional expendi-tures being used to house drug-involved inmates.Because many of these are non-violent drugoffenders serving relatively short sentences, pris-ons have been suggested as a logical place toprovide substance abuse treatment to reducerecidivism and the demand for illicit drugs(Leukefeld, 1991; Leukefeld & Tims, 1993; Lip-ton, 1995; Platt, 1995).

One of the most common types of treatmentprograms being adapted for correctional settingsin the United States is the In-Prison TlierapeuticCommunity (ITC). Based on community-basedtherapeutic community models (TC; see DeLeon, 1984, 1985, 1994), these programs havebeen modified to operate within correctionalinstitutions by housing treatment clients sepa-rately from the general prison population, recog-nizing that security is a primary goal. Thesein-prison programs also differ in how strictly theyadhere to traditional TC treatment proceduresand philosophies, such as limiting the role ofpeer leaders and increasing the use of clinicallytrained staff. ITCs also tend to have shortertreatment durations (from 6 to 12 months) thancommunity-based TCs and emphasize 12-Stepself-help recovery and relapse prevention pro-gramming (Wexler, 1994, 1995).

Earlier studies of prison-based TC programs(notably Cornerstone and Stay'n Out) foundtreatment was associated with reduced rearrestand reconviction rates and with better paroleoutcomes (Field, 1985, 1989, 1992; Wexler,Falkin & Lipton 1990; Wexler & Williams, 1986;Wexler et al., 1992). More recent researchprojects of prison-based TC drug treatment haveshown similar findings, and include evaluationsof Delaware's KEY-CREST (Martin, Butzin &Inciardi, 1995), California's Amity (Wexler etal., 1999), and Texas's Kyle New Vision(Knight, Hiller & Simpson, 1999; Knight et al.,1997) programs.

The KEY-CREST program represents a treat-ment continuum that mirrors the offenders' cus-tody status (Inciardi et al., 1997). Inmates with ahistory of drug-related problems are identifiedand referred to the KEY In-Prison TherapeuticCommunity (ITC) program. Following prisonrelease, parolees then go to the CREST pro-gram, a TC-based work-release program

(Nielsen, Scarpitti & Inciardi, 1996; Lockwood,Inciardi & Surratt, 1997). llie final treatmentphase includes supervised outpatient aftercare.Six-month post-relapse and recidivism for gradu-ates of both KEY and CREST were significantlylower than for program dropouts and a non-treatment comparison group (Martin, Butzin &Inciardi, 1995; Nielsen et al., 1996). Eighteen-month findings also showed 54% of those whocompleted both the prison-based and residentialwork-release aftercare components of treatmenthad used an illicit drug during the follow-upperiod, and 27% had been rearrested (Inciardi etal., 1997). In contrast, 76% of those who onlycompleted the prison-based TC treatment pro-gram had used drugs in the 18-month period,and 55% had been rearrested. An untreatedcomparison group had the poorest outcomes;85% had relapsed to drug use and 56% had beenrearrested for a new offense.

Another study evaluated California's Amityprogram (Wexler et al, 1998). Located in theDonovan Prison in San Diego, this 1-year resi-dential modified ITC includes treatment slotsfor 200 substance abusers who are near the endof their sentence term. Upon prison release,parolees are given the option of being admittedto a 40-bed community-based TC for tran-sitional aftercare. One-year outcomes showedthat only 25% of those who experienced both theprison and the community-based residentialaftercare programs were reincarcerated. This wassignificantly lower than the reincarceration ratesfor a group of individuals who did not completethe prison-based program (64%), for those thatcompleted the ITC but did not participate in theaftercare program (66%), and for an untreatedcomparison group (67%). Similarly, those whocompleted both the prison-based TC and after-care programs had the lowest relapse rate, withonly 25% having used an illicit drug, comparedto 64% of the ITC dropouts, 66% of the ITCcompleters and 67% of the comparison group.

The Kyle New Vision program was the firstITC developed under 1991 state legislation thatoutlined plans for several corrections-based sub-stance abuse treatment facilities in Texas (Eisen-berg & Fabelo, 1996). It is a prototype 500-bedfacility that provides treatment to inmates duringthe final 9 months of their prison term. Afterrelease, parolees are mandated to attend 3months of residential aftercare in a transitionaltherapeutic community (TTC), followed by

Prison-based treatment 8:35

supervised outpatient aftercare lasting up to 1year. An evaluation revealed that 3% of thosewho completed both ITC and TTC programswere rearrested within 6 months of their releasefrom prison, compared to 15% of those who onlycompleted the ITC (but failed to finish theTTC) and to 16% of an untreated comparisongroup (Knight et al, 1997). Furthermore, resultsfrom hair specimens collected during a 6-monthfollow-up period indicated 35% of those whocompleted both the ITC and TTC tested posi-tive for cocaine (the primary drug of choice forthose in the sample), compared to 47% for thegroup that completed only the ITC and 54% forthe untreated comparison group (Knight et al,1998).

ITiese evaluations suggest that, in addition toprison-based treatment, residential aftercare isimportant for seeing improved post-prison out-comes. The logic for providing aftercare sub-sequent to prison-based treatment is similar tothe rationale for using community correctionsfollowing prison release. Namely, the offenderhas been institutionalized and needs supervisedhelp for reintegrating into the community(McCarthy & McCarthy, 1997). Not only doesthe offender need assistance in finding stableliving arrangements and employment, but also indeveloping positive social support networks ofnon-deviant peers (Brown, 1979; Catalano et al,1989; Hawkins, 1979; Hawkins & Catalano,1985). For example, community residential cen-ters (i.e halfway houses) frequently are used byprobation and parole departments as part of anoffender's graduated release to the community(McCarthy & McCarthy, 1997). Tlieir purposeis to ease the abrupt transition of the oifenderfrom prison to community, thus promotingreintegration while keeping the offender in asemi-controlled environment (Clear & Braga,1995). Evaluations of this type of programminghave been encouraging, finding a generally posi-tive effect for employment, but no impact onoverall recidivism rates (Turner & Petersilia,1996).

Specifically designed for post-prison aftercare,the CREST Outreach Center (mentioned above)shows promise for preventing relapse and recidi-vism and for facilitating the reintegration ofdrug-involved offenders (Inciardi et al, 1992;Inciardi, Lockwood & Martin, 1994). A separatestudy comparing offenders who were randomlyassigned to either CREST or to traditional resi-

dential work-release found those who graduatedfrom CREST had the lowest relapse and recidi-vism rates (Lockwood et al, 1997). The TexasTTC programs were designed to be similar tothe Crest program, but these programs were jiothighly standardized and their comparativeimpact on post-release outcomes has not yetbeen studied systematically. Given the variedformats and stage of development of theseTTCs, there was high potential for discontinuitywith the treatment orientation of the ITC thatmight affect aftercare retention rates (De Leon,1990-91).

The current study expanded previous evalua-tions of the Kyle ITC program by examining theeffectiveness of residential aftercare following in-prison treatment in greater detail. Parolees v/hocompleted the TTC programs were expected, tohave the lowest recidivism rates. In addition,parolees who completed the TTC were ccim-pared with dropouts on the basis of backgroundcharacteristics and ratings of ITC and TFCtreatment experiences.

MethodSampleData were collected from 293 parolees vi horeceived treatment at the 9-month New Visionin-prison therapeutic community (ITC) in Kyle,Texas and from 103 parolees in a matched non-treated comparison group firom the geniiralprison population. Matching criteria for thetreatment and comparison groups included druguse and criminal history. All inmates were sched-uled for parole from prison between March andDecember 1994 (see Knight et al, 1997). Thecomparison group consisted of individuals whowere eligible for, but not sent to, the ITC by theparole board for a variety of reasons, typicallybecause bed space was limited or because fewerthan 9 montlis remained on their prison s.en-tence. Legislative mandate required thai 3months of residential community-based aftercareat a transitional therapeutic community (T^PC)immediately follow the ITC, but many offendersdropped out of these programs prematurely. Thetreatment group, therefore, was divided for ouranalyses into ITC Only (i.e. completed just thein-prison treatment; n= 123) and ITC/TTC(finished both in-prison and community-basedresidential aftercare treatment; n = 170) sub-groups.

836 Matthew L. Hiller et al.

All parolees (N=396) were male; 45% wereAfrican American, and 33% were white. Tliemajority were between the ages of 26 and 35, and28% had a high school education. As noted byKnight et al. (1997), all inmates had extensivecriminal records, much of which were drug-related. Thirty-six percent were committed toprison on a drug charge, and over two-thirds hadbeen incarcerated previously. Based on an indexused by the Texas Department of Criminal Jus-tice (TDCJ), which followed the Wisconsin sys-tem for classifying risk (Baird, 1981; emphasizingprior convictions, prior incarcerations, age at firstincarceration, commitment offense, prior parolerevocations, drug and alcohol history, employ-ment history and education level), most (71%)were classified as being at medium or high risk forrecidivism. The three groups (ITC Only, ITC/TTC, Comparison) were similar on other demo-graphic measures (e.g. race/ethnicity, age andeducation level), except the ITC Only and ITC/TTC groups had more individuals who hadbeen previously imprisoned [F (2, 393) = 3.42,p<0.05)] and more who were classified as highrisk for recidivism [F(2, 393) = 7.72, p<0.01].Although all offenders had been judged by theparole board to be eligible for treatment, thosewho actually received it had higher rates of self-reported illicit drug use for the period of timeimmediately prior to their being imprisoned. Sev-enty-one percent of the Kyle graduates reportedthey had used marijuana, compared to 54% ofthe comparison group. Similarly, 38% of the ITCgroup reported use of opioids, but only 18% ofthe comparison group admitted pre-prison use.The treatment and comparison groups werecomparable on their use of alcohol (89% and84%, respectively), and cocaine (including crack;77% versus 65%, respectively).

MeasuresBackground information was abstracted for alloffenders from the TDCJ Institutional Divisiondatabase, including gender, ethnicity, age, edu-cation level, criminal history and risk for recidi-vism. Due to the accelerated nature of the datacollection required by the evaluation contract,baseline assessments could only be collected ret-rospectively from both treatment groups (i.e.ITC Only, ITC/TTC) during their last 2 monthsat the Kyle New Vision ITC through an interviewwith clinical staff. Detailed analyses of these data

are reported elsewhere (Hiller, 1996; Knight etal, 1997, 1998b). The records included clini-cally-orientated measures of drug dependency,psychological functioning (self-esteem,depression, anxiety and decision-makingconfidence, Joe et al, 1991) and treatmentmotivation (Simpson & Joe, 1993).

Assessment of inmate satisfaction with theirin-prison treatment was collected from the ITCOnly and ITC/TTC groups using a self-adminis-tered questionnaire. This included parolee rat-ings of their counselor (i.e. competence andrapport), treatment program characteristics (rap-port with peers, treatment sessions, treatmentand custody staff and program organization andstructure) and therapeutic groups (engagement,personal progress and rapport with group). Forexample, offenders evaluated rapport with theircounselors using a seven-point Liken scale(1= "disagree strongly", 4 = "uncertain", 7 ="agree strongly") on items such as "your coun-selors respected you and your opinions"and "your counselors were easy to talk to". Inter-nal consistency reliabilities were high (coefficientalphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.94; see Hiller,1996, for a detailed description of the develop-ment of these measures). In addition, anothercomposite variable for parolee satisfaction withtheir TTC experience (coefficient alpha = 0.91)was created from nine questions answered duringa 6-month face-to-face follow-up interview.This composite included ratings of TTC compo-nents such as the caring and helpfulness of coun-selors, group and individual counseling, andhelpfulness of tlie case manager on a seven-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 = "terrible" to7 = "great".

Post-release recidivism was based on arrestsrecorded in the Texas Department of PublicSafety Criminal History Record Informationdatabase. Because parolees are mandated toremain in Texas as a condition of their legalsupervision status, this database represents ahighly complete record of arrests. At the time ofthe record search conducted for this study,parolees had been out of prison at least 13months, ranging up to a maximum of 23 months.Data and type of first post-release arrest for a newoffense were coded and the analytical proceduresdescribed below used the period of time betweenprison release and first rearrest as the dependentvariable, and accommodated the varying dur-ation of the follow-up period.

Prison-based treatment fi37

Table 1. Rearrest survival rates using product-limit cumulative percentages over time

Minimum months to first rearrest(% of sample with no new offense)

N 12 Close'

Total sampleComparisonITC OnlyITC/ITC

396103123170

97969598

90848795

82767888

75697184

65586470

'"Close" column indicates the percentage of sample not arrested at the end of the follow-upperiod (13-23 months).

Table 2. Summary of proportional hazards regression model predicting rearrest

Predictor

ITC onlynCAlTC**African AmericanWhiteAge 33 +12 + years educationAdmitting offense (drug)Previous incarceration*High recidivism risk

b

-0.13-0.65-0.13

0.27-0.15-0.16-0.16

0.570.24

SE

0.240.240.250.250.190.220.200.240.20

0.307.720.281.140.600.570.635.811.55

Risk ratio

0.880.520.881.310.860.850.851.771.28

Analytical approachThe relationship of transitional residential after-care with recidivism was explored using survivalanalyses. First, a general description of rearrestrates for each of the three groups was based onthe product-limit estimation approach (Kaplan& Meier, 1958). Next, the bivariate relationshipsbetween each predictor variable and timebetween prison release and first rearrest wereassessed using the Wilcoxon test, generalized toaccommodate observations in which the eventdid not occur (Kalbfleisch & Prentice, 1980).The multivariate associations between predictorsand rearrest were examined with a proportionalhazards model (Cox, 1972). Two variables wereincluded in both the Wilcoxon tests and the Coxregression model to denote group classification.One indicated if a parolee had finished both ITCand TTC treatment (0 = "no"; 1 = "yes"), andthe other if the parolee had completed only ITCtreatment (0 = "no"; 1 = "yes"). When con-sidered together in the same model, these twopredictors contrasted the ITC/TTC and ITCOnly groups against the comparison group.

After differences in rearrest rates between theITC/TTC and ITC Only groups were examined.

a second set of analyses identified specific factorsassociated with aftercare completion. This wasdone for two reasons. First, differences in recidi-vism between TTC completers and dropoutscould have been related to other considerations,causing selective dropout and "biasing" onegroup for better outcomes. For example,parolees in the ITC/ITC group might have hadfewer problems (e.g. drug dependency, psycho-logical functioning), thus leading to improvedTTC completion rates and better outcomes(Simpson & Joe, 1993; Joe, Brown & Simpson,1995; Broome et al., 1996; Eisenberg & Fabelo,1996; Hiller et al., 1996). Secondly, failure tocomplete aftercare might have resulted irominadequate therapeutic process and progressduring ITC treatment (Simpson et al., 1995), orfrom dissatisfaction with the TTC treatmerit.

ResultsKaplan product-limit estimates showed that dur-ing the 13-23-month follow-up period, 42% ofthe comparison, 36% of the ITC Only and 30%of the ITC/TTC groups were arrested for a newoffense. Of the 120 who were rearrested, most

838 Matthew L. Hiller et al.

Table 3. Summary of logistic regression model predicting aftercare completion

Predictor

InterceptAfrican AmericanWhiteAge 33 +12 + years educationAdmitting offense (drug)Previous incarcerationHigh recidivism riskDrug dependentSelf-esteemDepressionAnxietyDecision-making confidenceTreatment motivationCounselor competenceRapport with counselorRappon with peers*Treatment sessionsTreatment and custody staffOrganization and structureTreatment engagementPersonal progressRapport with groupSatisfaction with TTC*

SE Odds ratio

0.140.320.350.450.200.060.110.270.410.060.040.080.200.030.180.010.400.210.210.010.260.020.050.29

1.960.400.440.300.350.310.340.310.390.180.140.140.180.130.200.210.170.150.140.190.220.280.180.12

0.640.652.290.350.040.100.741.100.110.070.301.300.060.840.005.722.012.140.001.320.000.095.92

0.731.431.580.820.941.121.310.670.951.040.930.820.960.830.990.671.241.230.991.291.011.061.34

*p<0.05.

(80%) were arrested within the first year, andabout one-third (34%) were arrested within thefirst 6 months after release from prison (seeTable 1). ITie three most common arrest cate-gories (defined by the uniform offenseclassifications of the National Crime InformationCenter), were traffic violations (23%, includingdriving while intoxicated), drug offenses (21%)and larceny (14%). No other offense categoryexceeded 10%. Forty-seven percent of the newarrests were felonies and 53% were mis-demeanors.

Bivariate associations assessed through a seriesof Wilcoxon tests revealed time to recidivismvaried significantly by group membership,especially for the ITC/Tl^C group [y^(.l,N= 395) = 9.79, p<O.Ol]. Although none ofthe demographic variables were significantlyassociated with rearrest, they were included inthe final proportional hazards regression becauseother research suggests they should be statisti-cally controlled. The resulting multivariatemodel showed that parolees who completed boththe ITC and TTC programs had half the risk forrearrest than those in the untreated comparisongroup (risk ratio (RR) = 0.52; see Table 2).

Offenders with a previous incarceration also wereabout twice as likely as their counterparts to berearrested for a new offense during the follow-upperiod (RR= 1.77). No other factors, includingethnicity (treatment was designed to be cultur-ally-sensitive), were significantly related to post-release rearrest.

Because differences in post-treatment rearrestrates between treatment groups could haveresulted from group differences on other clini-cally-relevant characteristics, analyses of variance(ANOVAs) were used to compare the ITC Onlyand ITC/TTC groups on additional backgroundmeasures (including the number who were drugdependent), on measures of psychological func-tioning and treatment motivation, on ITC treat-ment process and progress ratings (e.g. rapportwith counselor) and on satisfaction with TTCtreatment. Only one of these measures wasstatistically significant (p<0.05), indicating thatboth groups were highly similar in their back-ground and had comparably high ratings of ITCprocess and progress. Not surprisingly, however,those in the ITC Only group were significantlyless satisfied with their TTC treatment [F(l,233) = 6.30, p<0.05]. Furthermore, results

Prison-based treatment 839

from a multivariate logistic regression model (seeTable 3) that simultaneously considered all thesefactors showed offenders with greater rapportwith their peers during the ITC weresignificantly less likely to complete the TTC(fc = - 0.40, p < 0.05). Higher ratings of satisfac-tion during the TTC were associated with betteraftercare completion rates (6 = 0.29, p<0.05).

DiscussionThis study shows that prison-based treatmentlowers the risks for rearrest after release and alsoprolongs the length of time until a rearrestoccurs, especially when followed by residentialcommunity-based aftercare. That is, when com-pared to the untreated comparison and ITC onlygroups, parolees who completed both the In-Prison Therapeutic Community and the Tran-sitional Therapeutic Community were not onlythe least likely to be rearrested after release fromprison, but also the most likely to have thelongest elapsed time before being rearrested.Residential aftercare, therefore, contributes topost-release success, a finding consistent withother evaluations of prison-based therapeuticcommunities (e.g. Inciardi et al., 1997).

Relapses to drug use and crime are common inall substance abuse treatment approaches,especially during the first 90 days after discharge,but community-based aftercare helps preventthese unfavorable outcomes (De Leon, 1984,1990-91). By undergoing a transitional treat-ment program after prison, parolees in the ITC/Tl^C group presumably had more opportunityto find stable living arrangements and employ-ment. They also continued to receive intensivesupport and treatment, helping them to copewith pressures associated with negative peerinfluences (Hawkins, 1979; Inciardi et al., 1997).The TTC, therefore, seems to have played animportant reintegrative role by providing a sup-portive environment and services to offenders atrisk for relapse as they worked in the community.

While the first set of findings from this studysupport the use of residential aftercare followingprison-based treatment, other analyses exploredalternative explanations for tlie difference inrecidivism rates between the ITC Only, ITC/TTC and comparison groups. For example, ifone group had "less severe" background prob-lems, this might have allowed better outcomes.However, parolees in the ITC Only and ITC/

TTC groups had more severe criminal profilesthan the comparison group, including more lvhowere previously incarcerated and rated at "highrisk" for recidivism. In the absence of any inter-vention effects, therefore, these two factorsshould have led to poorer outcomes for thesegroups, compared to the untreated comparisongroup. Despite this, the ITC/TTC treatmentgroup had significantly better post-treatmentoutcomes; and even though the ITC Only groupdid not have a statistically significantly lciwerprobability of rearrest, they were 1.2%(RR = 0.88) less likely than the untreated com-parison group to be rearrested.

More extensive comparisons showed the ITC/TTC and ITC Only groups were similar in tertnsof the proportion who were drug dependent andon measures of psychological functioning. Fur-thermore, offenders in both groups were highlymotivated to remain in treatment. This sug-gested that parolees who did not complete tran-sitional aftercare programming were similar tothose who did, and there was no systematicsample attrition evident. Therefore, other factorsmust explain why these parolees dropped out ofthe I T C .

Higher dissatisfaction with aftercare treatmentwas reported by those not completing the TTCtreatment phase. At the time of this study, thedevelopment of these residential facilities laggedbehind tlie ITC component, and more than 40vendors (most of whom were unfamiliar withtherapeutic community technology) provided aneclectic array of residential transitional prog:ram-ming (Eisenberg & Fabelo, 1996). The lac;k ofcontinuity between ITC and TTC therapeuticapproaches may have contributed to lower treat-ment satisfaction and to early dropouts from theaftercare programs. For example, shifting fromthe peer-to-peer environment of the ITC to themore traditional medical model approach ofaftercare programs could have led to many indi-viduals becoming dissatisfied, not perceivingtheir aftercare treatment as "community", andnot using services offered by that program (seeDe Leon, 1990-91). Tliis is consistent with thefinding that those who expressed greater rapportwith their peers at the ITC were significantly lesslikely to complete the TTC. The potential dis-continuity of this treatment continuum modeland its impact needs further attention.

This study represents a first-stage examinationof the impact of residential aftercare on rccidi-

840 Matthew L. Hiller et al.

vism. Only official records of rearrest (includingthe timing of rearrest) were used as indicators ofrecidivism, and future studies should consider thetypes of offenses for which a rearrest was madeand also might benefit from parolee self-reports ofcriminal activity. Self-admitted criminal involve-ment could provide a fuller account of these typesof behavior than is reflected in official datasources. Tlie latter represents only those activitiesthat are detected by law enforcement, whereas theformer can include information about frequencyand type of illegal activities, amount of crime-gen-erated income and arrests that might not bedocumented in the official databases. Conversely,official arrest records do represent a standardizedsource of outcome data on which comparisonsbetween programs within the same criminal jus-tice system can be based (see Knight et al,1998a). Because they consist entirely of reportsfrom criminal justice authorities, these records arcnot dependent on the offender to be truthfulwhen providing self-reported information.

In conclusion, our findings suggest two impli-cations for implementing corrections-based treat-ment. First, policy should insure that residentialaftercare follow prison-based treatment in orderto maximize long-term reductions in recidivism.Effective in-prison treatment appears to require acontinuum of care tliat takes the drug-involvedoffender from the institutional environment to thereintegrative processes of community-based ini-tiatives. Secondly, the integrity of residentialaftercare services should be maintained to insurea high-quality experience as well as satisfactionwith treatment. Only by providing quality after-care following prison-based treatment will theimpact of this programming be optimally realized.

AcknowledgementThis work was conducted in partial fulfillment ofMatthew L. Hiller's doctoral dissertation. Thisproject was supported by Grant No. 96-IJ-CX-0024 awarded by the National Institute of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, US Department ofJustice. Points of view in this document are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily represent theofficial position or policies of the US Departmentof Justice.

ReferencesBAIR15, C. S. (1981) Probation and parole

classification: the Wisconsin model. CorrectionsToday, 43, 36-41.

B A U , J. C , SnAFi'HR, J. W. & NURCO, D . N . (1983)Day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts in Balti-more: a study in the continuity of offense rates. Drugand Alcohol Dependence, 12, 119-142.

BR0OM1-, K. M., KNIGHT, K . , HILU-R, M . L . & SIMP-SON, D. D. (1996) Drug treatment process indicatorsfor probationers and prediction of recidivism. Jour-nal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13, 487-491.

BROWN, B . S. (Ed.) (1979) Addicts and Aftercare: com-munity reintegration of the former drug user (BeverlyHills, CA, Sage).

BuRi-AU o r JusTicii STATISTICS (1996) CorrectionalPopulations in the United States, 1994 (Washington,DC, US Department of Justice).

BuRi'AU oi'JusTicii Si ATlsrics (1997) Felony Sentencesin State Courts, 1994 (Washington, DC, US Depart-ment of Justice).

CATAI^NO, R . F . , WiiLLS, E. A., JI;NSON, J. M. &HAWKINS, J. D. (1989) Aftercare services for drug-using institutionalized delinquents. Social ServiceReview, 63, 553-577.

CuiAR, T. D. & BRAGA, A. A. (1995) Communitycorrections, in: Wli^ON, J. Q. & Pii riiRSlUA, J. (Eds)Crime, pp. 4 2 1 ^ 4 4 (San Francisco, CA, Institutefor Contemporary Studies).

Cox, D. R. (1972) Regression models and life tables.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34,187-202.

DllLliON, G. (1984) The Therapeutic Community: studyof effectiveness, NIDA research monograph scries,DHHS publication no. ADM 84-1286 (Rockvillc,MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse).

Di; Ll-ON, G. (1985) 'lTic therapeutic community:status and evolution. International Journal of theAddictions, 20, 823-844.

Di; Li;ON, G. (1990-91) Aftercare in therapeutic com-munities. International Journal of the Addictions, 25,1225-1237.

Di; Li'ON, G. (1994) The therapeutic community:toward a general theory and model, in: T I M S , F . M . ,DI- LI;ON, G . & JAINCMIU., N . (Eds) Therapeutic

Community: advances in research and practice, NIDAresearch monograph 144, DHHS publication no.ADM 94-3633, pp. 16-53 (Rockville, MD,National Institute on Drug Abuse).

Elsi'NHHRG, M. & I'AHiii.o, T. (1996) Evaluation of theTexas Correctional Substance Abuse Treatment Ini-tiative: the impact of policy research. Crime andDelinquency, 42, 296-308.

Fir.i.n, G. (1985) The Cornerstone Program: a clientoutcome study. Federal Probation, 49, 50-55.

FlHl.D, G. (1989) The effects of intensive treatment onreducing the criminal recidivism of addicted offend-ers. Federal Probation, 53, 51-56.

Fil'LD, G. (1992) Oregon prison drug treatment pro-grams, in: Li;UKi:i-i;i.n, C. G. & T I M S , F . M . (Eds)Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails, NIDAresearch monograph 118, DHHS publication no.ADM 92-1884, pp. 142-155 (Rockville, MD,National Institute on Drug Abuse).

HAWKINS, J. D. (1979) Reintegrating street drugabusers: community roles in aftercare, in: BROWN, B .(Ed.) Addicts and Aftercare: community reintegration of

Prison-based treatment 841

the former drug user, pp. 25-79 (Beverly Hills, CA,Sage).

HAWKINS, J. D. & CATALANO, R. F . (1985) Aftercare indrug abuse treatment. International Journal of theAddictions, 20, 917-945.

HiLLKR, M. L. (1996) Correlates of recidivism and relapsefor parolees who received in-prison substance abuse treat-ment in Texas, Dissertation Abstracts International,57, 04B (tJniversity Microfilms No. AAG96-25980).

HiLLr.R, M. L., KNIGHI, K., BROOMI;, K. M . & SIMP-SON, D. D. (1996) Compulsory community-basedsubstance abuse treatment and the mentally ill crimi-nal offender. Prison Journal, 76, 180-191.

INCIARDI, J. A., LOCKWOOD, D . & MARTIN, S. S. (1994)Therapeutic communities in corrections and workrelease: some clinical and policy considerations, in:TIMS, F . M. , DU LHON, G. & JAINCMILL, N . (Eds)Therapeutic Community: advances in research and prac-tice, NIDA research monograph 144, DHHS publi-cation no. ADM 94-3633, pp. 259-267 (Rockville,MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse).

INCIARDI, J. A., MARTIN, S. S., BUTZIN, C. A., HOOPRR,R. M. & HARRISON, L. D . (1997) An effective modelof prison-based treatment for drug-involved offend-ers. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278

INCIAMJI, J. A., MAiaiN, S. S., LOCKWOOD, D.,HoornR, R. M. & WALD, B. M . (1992) Obstaclesto the implementation and evaluation of drugtreatment programs in correctional settings: review-ing the Delaware Key experience, in: LHUKIIFHLD,C. G. & TIMS, F . M. (Eds) Drug Abuse Treatmentin Prisons and Jails, NIDA research monograph118, DHHS publication no. ADM 92-1884, pp.176-191 (Rockville, MD, National Institute onDrug Abuse).

Joi:, G. W., BROWN, B. & SIMPSON, D . D . (1995) Psy-chological problems and client engagement inmethadone treatment. Journal of Nervous and MentalDiseases, 183, 704-710.

Jon, G. W., KNIIZHK, L. D., WATSON, D . D . & SIMP-SON, D. D. (1991) Depression and decision-makingamong intravenous drug users. Psychological Reports,68, 339-347.

KALHFiJiiscH, ]. D. & PRENTICE, R. L. (1980) TheStatistical Analysis of Failure Time Data (New York,John Wiley & Sons).

KAPIAN, E. L. & MEIER, P. (1958) Nonparametdcestimation from incomplete observations, AmericanStatistical Association Journal, 53, 457-481.

KNIGHT, K., HILLER, M . L. & SIMPSON, D . D . (1999)Evaluating corrections-based treatment for the drug-abusing criminal offender. Journal of PsychoactiveDrugs, in press.

KNIGHT, K., HILLER, M. L., SIMPSON, D . D . &BROOME, K. M . (1998) The validity of self-reportedcocaine use in a criminal justice treatment sample,American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24,647-660.

KNIGHT, K., SIMPSON, D . D. , CHATHAM, L. R. &CAMACHO, L. M . (1997) An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas' in-prison therapeuticcommunity program. Journal of Offender Rehabili-tation, 24, 75-100.

LEUKEI ELD, C. G. (1991) Opportunities for enhancingdrug abuse treatment with criminal justice authoirity,in: PiCKENS, R. W., LEUKEEELD, C. G. & Scuusi ER,C. R. (Eds) Improving Drug Abuse Treatment, NIDAresearch monograph 106, DHHS publication no.ADM 91-1754, pp. 328-337 (Rockville, A-ID,National Institute on Drug Abuse).

LHUKHM-LD, C. G. & TIMS, F . M . (1993) Drug abusetreatment in prisons and jails. Journal of SubstanceAbuse Treatment, 10, 77-84.

LlPTON, D. S. (1995) The Effectiveness of Treatment forDrug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Superviiion,National Institute of Justice, research report (W;jsh-ington, DC, US Department of Justice, Offici; ofJustice Programs).

LOCKWOOD, D., INCIARDI, J. A. & SURRATI, H . L.(1997) Crest outreach center: a model for blendingtreatment and corrections, in: TiMS, F. M., INCIARDI,J. A., FLETCHI;R, B. W. & HORTON, A. M. JR. (Eds)The Effectiveness of Innovative Approaches in the Treat-ment of Drug Abuse, pp. 70-82 (Westpon, CT,Greenwood Press).

MARTIN, S. S., BUTZIN, C. A. & INCIARIJI, J. A. (1995)Assessment of a multistage therapeutic communityfor drug-involved offenders. Journal of PsychoactiveDrugs, 27, 109-116.

MCCARIHY, B. R. & MCCARTHY, B. J. (1997) Com-munity-based Corrections, 3rd edn (Belmont, CA,Wadsworth Publishing Company).

NATIONAL iNSTiTuri; or JUSTICE (1996) 1996 Drug UseForecasting: annual report on adult and juvenile arrestees(Washington, DC, US Department of Justice).

NiiiiJiEN, A. L., ScARprni, F. R. & INCIARDI, J. A.(1996) Integrating the tlierapeutic community andwork release for drug-involved offenders: the CrestProgram, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13,349-358.

NuRCo, D. N., HANLON, T . E. & KINLOCK, T . W.(1991) Recent research on the relationship betviJeenillicit drug use and crime. Behavioral Sciences and theLaw, 9, 221-242.

Plj\rr, J. (1995) Heroin Addiction Theory, Research,Treatment, vol. 2. The addict, the treatment process, andsocial control (Malabar, FL, Krieger).

SIMPSON, D . D . & Jou, G. W. (1993) Motivation as apredictor of early dropout from drug abuse treat-ment. Psychotherapy, 30, 357-368.

SIMPSON, D . D . JOE, G. W. , ROWAN-SZAL, G. &GREENER, J. (1995) Client engagement and changeduring drug abuse treatment. Journal of SubstanceAbuse, 1, 117-134.

TURNER, S. & PHTERSILIA, J. (1996) Work release inWashington: effects on recidivism and correctionscosts, l^son Journal, 76, 138-164.

Wl-XLER, H. K. (1994) Progress in prison substanceabuse treatment: a five year report. Journal of DrugIssues, 24, 349-360.

WEXLER, H . K. (1995) The success of therapi:;uticcommunities for substance abusers in American pris-ons. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 27, 57-66.

WEXLI:R, H . K. & WILLIAMS, R. (1986) The Stay'n Outtherapeutic community: prison treatment for sub-stance abusers. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18,221-230.

842 Matthew L. Hiller et al.

WnxuiR, H. K., DE LEON, G., KRI-SSEL, D . & PETERS, WEXLER, H . K., FALKIN, G. P., LIITON, D . S. & ROSEN-J. (1999) The Amity prison TC evaluation: reincar- BLUM, A. B. (1992) Outcome evaluation of a prisonceration outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, in therapeutic community for substance abuse treat-P''' ^ - ment, in: LEUKEFELD, C. G. & TIMS, F . M . (Eds)

WiiXijiR, H. K., FALKIN, G. P. & LIPTON, D . S. (1990) Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails, NIDAOutcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic com- research monograph 118, DHHS publication no.munity for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Jus- ADM 92-1884, pp. 156-175 (Rockville, MD, Na-nce and Behavior, 17, 71-92. tional Institute on Drug Abuse).