Outcome Evaluation of the Crossroad to Freedom House and Peer I Therapeutic Communities in Colorado, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 4212)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

This study aimed to further evaluate previous findings regarding drug use and criminal behaviors among the criminal population by investigating the effectiveness of two Colorado Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Communities (RSAT TC) for offenders. The first, the Crossroad to Freedom House Therapeutic Community at the Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC TC) was a prison-based program and the second was the community-based Peer I Therapeutic Community (Peer I). Together these programs provide a continuum of care for high risk substance abusing felons. This project examined outcomes for both the ACC TC and the Peer I TC as well as the effectiveness of the combined programs to reduce recidivism.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Two methodologies were used to gather data. Part 1 contains quantitative data from five separate study groups of differing sample sizes, with a total of 778 cases. The first group (31 cases) received both the ACC TC program and Peer I, and the second group (97 cases) received only the Peer I program. The third group (162 cases) successfully completed the ACC TC program, the fourth group (256 cases) did not complete the ACC TC program, and the fifth group (232 cases) received no TC program, but were eligible. The groups were compared on five separate outcome variables: technical violation, new misdemeanor arrest, new felony arrest, return to prison, and overall supervision failure. Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study and the strict procedures used to ensure confidentiality of the data. Participants were neither compensated for participation nor subjected to negative consequences for nonparticipation. To gather baseline information from participants, a researcher administered the intake packet in group format to participants within three weeks of admission to ACC TC. Outcome data were collected for a two-year follow-up period for each participant. Data regarding new crimes and arrests were gathered from the National Crime Information Center and the Colorado Crime Information Center. The date of reincarceration was defined as the date an offender came back to prison or jail if a prison stay followed immediately. For offenders who absconded from parole, the date they absconded from supervision, rather than the date of the consequent arrest, was used as a reincarceration date. Part 2 consists of case studies of ten participants, two from each of the above five listed groups. One from each group had successful outcomes, and one did not. Successful outcomes were defined as participants who were still living in the community after 12 to 18 months without any new charges. Unsuccessful outcomes were defined as those participants who were returned to prison for technical violations or new charges and were eligible for the study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Information for the case studies was gathered through interviews with both former prisoners and one of his significant others. Offenders who were willing to participate were also asked to give permission to have a significant other (i.e., wife, family member, or friend) interviewed. Incarcerated participants were interviewed in a private visitation room within the prison. Community participants were interviewed in library group rooms or a park. Significant others were interviewed in library group rooms or at their homes. The primary interview with consenting participants consisted of open-ended questions and took an average of three hours to complete. During the interview, there were two interviewers present to increase objectivity and decrease researcher bias. The significant other interviews were conducted in person and were approximately one hour long. These interviews aimed to confirm the participant's self report and identify any conflicting or additional information. Prior to the follow-up interview, the transcript of the primary interview was used to write a case report. The participants were asked to review the report and suggest any changes to the facts or content. Follow-up questions were then addressed. The entire follow-up interview, including the review of the report, took approximately one to two hours. Final changes were made to the report based on the follow-up, and any contradictory information from the significant other interview was added as an adjunct. Participants in these interviews were compensated for their participation with a monetary payment. Significant others were paid $40 for their interviews. Those participants in prison were paid a total of $65, and those on parole were paid a total of $170. This differential reflects the earning potentials for those in the community versus those in prison.

Sample View help for Sample

Offenders were eligible for TC programs only if the Colorado Department of Corrections recommended them for treatment. Substance abuse treatment placement is driven by Colorado's standardized offender assessment (SOA), and offenders must have been recommended for residential treatment on the SOA in order to be admitted to either TC. In order to gather the data contained in Part 1, five groups of participants were used to examine treatment outcomes (N = 778). Participants in group one received treatment at both the ACC TC and the Peer I TC (n = 31). They successfully completed treatment at ACC TC, which included a minimum stay of 180 days and a progressive transition to the community. Participants in group two received treatment at Peer I TC only (n = 97). They did not receive TC treatment at any prison-based TC, but may have been involved in a less intensive treatment program. Group three participants received treatment at ACC TC only (n = 162). Participants in this group successfully completed the program, which included a minimum stay of 180 days and a progressive move to the community. They did not attend Peer I or any other community-based TC treatment, although they may have received lower levels of treatment. Group four received treatment at ACC TC only, but did not successfully complete the program (n = 256). An unsuccessful completion was defined as dropping out of the program, being expelled, or transferring out of the program with less than 180 days in treatment, even if the move was a progressive one. Participants who left for medical reasons or were discharged with an administrative termination (e.g., transfer to another program) were excluded from the sample because these discharges were deemed beyond the participants' control. The control group participants were identified through the standard DOC assessment protocol as needing residential substance abuse, but did not attend a TC in either prison or the community (n = 232). With two exceptions, participants in this group were not screened for other treatment participation, so they may have attended treatment at a less intensive level at some point. Control participants were screened individually for any refusals to go to TC treatment. Twenty cases were excluded for refusing admission to TC. Sex offenders and offenders who discharged their corrections sentence were excluded from this group model to TC admission criteria. The data contained in Part 2 was gathered from a total of ten individuals, two individuals selected from each of the above five groups who were released from prison between January 2002 and June 2002. These individuals consisted of one participant from each group that had a successful outcome post release from prison, meaning that they were still living in the community 12 to 18 months without any new charges. The other individual had an unsuccessful outcome, meaning they were eligible for the study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Included as a part of these interviews were interviews with the interviewee's significant other (i.e. wife, family member, or friend) who had known the participant prior to his incarceration, was in contact with him during their time of recent release, and could be reached for an interview in person.

Universe View help for Universe

Male offenders in the state of Colorado from 1995-2001, excluding sex offenders, who met the state's eligibility criteria for substance abuse treatment.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables for Part 1 includes demographic information such as ethnicity, marital status, age at TC intake, earnings, and education level. Variables are also provided regarding the length of stay in both the ACC TC and Peer I, types of programs parolees were released to, and time periods between leaving the Department of Corrections and any subsequent returns. Variable scores from the assessment instruments are also included on the mental health of study participants, such as the presence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in childhood and ADHD classification as an adult, as well as the present occurrence of psychopathology, personality disorders, and mood disorders. Information is also included on alcohol and drug dependence, readiness, and motivation for treatment. Part 2 consists of information regarding ACC TC and Peer I participants' post-treatment, such as their employment status, financial well-being, significant relationships, relapse information, and whether or not the interviewee has returned to the Department of Corrections since receiving treatment and being released.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

not available

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Scales include the Level of Service Inventory-Revised, Adult Substance Use Survey, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, Barkley Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale, Wender Utah Rating Scale, the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment, and the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability Scale. Several Likert-type scales were also used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2005-10-11

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

none