1 / 16

Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community: Five-Year Outcomes

Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community: Five-Year Outcomes. Association of Criminal Justice Research (CA) Sacramento, California March 17, 2005.

Jimmy
Télécharger la présentation

Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community: Five-Year Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community: Five-Year Outcomes Association of Criminal Justice Research (CA) Sacramento, California March 17, 2005 UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  2. Prendergast, Michael; Hall, Elizabeth; Wexler, Harry; Melnick, Gerald; & Cao, Yan. (2004). Amity prison-based therapeutic community: Five-year outcomes. Prison Journal, 84(1), 36-60. McCollister, Kathryn; French, Michael; Prendergast, Michael; Hall, Elizabeth; & Sacks, Stan. (2004). Long-term cost effectiveness of addiction treatment for criminal offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 659-679. Funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  3. Aims • To assess long-term post-treatment outcomes of a prison-based TC program • To determine differential outcomes within selected subgroups • Toexamine factors that contribute to the long-term recovery of those who did not participate in treatment UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  4. Aims • To conduct secondary analyses of data previously collected • To conduct a cost analysis of the prison TC program and the TC continuing care program UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  5. Subjects • 715 inmates enrolled in or on a waiting list for a prison-based therapeutic community drug treatment program (1993-1995) • Randomly assigned to treatment or comparison group • Housed in a Level 3 prison in San Diego • Those completing treatment were eligible for TC aftercare at Amity Vista upon release UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  6. Subjects • Male • White 37.8%, Hispanic 30.1%, African American 22.4% • Average age at follow up: 38 years (range, 26 to 72) • Low educational attainment • Primarily users of methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine • Violent: 75% had committed assault, kidnapping, rape, or murder • Mean arrests (lifetime) at baseline: 27 • Mean incarcerations (lifetime) at baseline: 17 • Mean years in prison (lifetime) at baseline: 6 UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  7. Methods Five-year follow-up interviews : • 576 completed (80% of original sample) • Face-to-face • Many interviews were conducted in jails and prisons • Modified NDRI follow-up instrument and DARC’s Natural History instrument • Urine samples (31% of completed sample) • Hair samples (19% of completed sample) UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  8. Methods: Follow-up Status UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  9. Findings at Years 1, 2, and 3 Calculated from Lowe, Wexler, & Peters (1998), Wexler, De Leon, Kressel, & Peters (1999) Wexler Melnick, Lowe, & Peters (1999). UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  10. Outcomes for Intent-to-Treat Sample (Chi-square) UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  11. Outcomes for Treatment Subgroups (Chi-square) UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  12. Days to 1st Incarceration UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  13. Cost Effectiveness UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  14. Cost Effectiveness UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  15. Summary • After five years, reincarceration was high, but Amity participants were significantly less likely to have been returned to prison than comparison subjects. • No difference between treatment and comparison groups in drug use and employment. • Among treatment subgroups, those who completed Vista TC aftercare performed significantly better on reincarceration and employment measures, but not drug use. • Prison treatment plus community treatment is a cost-effective policy for reducing reincarceration. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

  16. Thank You Questions? ISAP website: uclaisap.org UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

More Related