0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

First, we examined the drug relapse rates for TC v. Comparison inmates, holding all other
variables constant (Figure 6). TC inmates (36%) were slightly less likely than Comparison inmates
(39%) to relapse to drug use, but this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, positive
drug tests occurred most fiequently for cocaine (58% of those testing positive), cannabinoids
(25%), opiates (21%), and ethanol (16%).
Next, we examined relapse rates for TC and Comparison groups, broken down by
institution (Figure 7). While differences in relapse rates between TC and Comparison groups (0-
3%) did not reach statistical significance, Figure 7 illustrates the significantly higher rates of
relapse (44 - 46%) observed for Cresson and Houtzdale inmates. Significantly lower relapse rates
were observed for Waymart (23%), Huntingdon (30 - 3 l%), and Graterford (32 - 35%).
I
e
Finally, we examined relapse rates for each institution, broken down by post-release
inmate employment status (Figure 8). In addition to the institutional effect illustrated by Figure 7,
Figure 8 shows how full time employment signilicantly lowers the likelihood of relapse. The
lowest rates of relapse were observed for inmates employed full time after completing treatment
at Waymart (19%), Huntingdon (25%), and Graterford (27%).
While the effects of employment on reducing drug relapse are impressive, it is impossible
to label the observed relationship as direct cause and effect, because those who were gainfully
employed may differ in unknown ways (e.g., previous employment history, family support,
community ties) fi-om those who were not. More detailed information was not available in parole
data, although such information may have influenced the risk supervision grade assigned by
PBPP. We entered risk supervision grade into logistic regressions with the other variables, but it
failed to reach statistical significance or improve the goodness of fit. Entering numerous
combinations of other control variables (e.g., prior and current offense severity, level of need for
116
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.