0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

e
reincarcerated, compared to only 37% of Group 2 (NG% mo.), 33% of Group 3 (NG 2-6 mo.),
and 15% of Group 4 (NG 0-2 mo.).
Cornerstone’s results have fiequently been cited as a demonstration of the success of
prison-based TC. However, differences in recidivism rates between comparison groups may be
less than 8% when program failures are properly considered (Austin, 1998). Problems with
selection bias may also have attenuated treatment impact: program graduates had significantly
more severe criminal histories and substance abuse problems than others (Lipton, 1995). Indeed,
the use of a post hoc research design based solely on degree of inmate participation in treatment
fails to rule out numerous threats to internal validity (see Fletcher and Tims, 1992).
The Texas In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC)
In 1991, the Texas legislature and then-Governor Ann Richards began a comprehensive
correctional substance abuse treatment initiative. While the initiative faced numerous setbacks and
was never hlly implemented, it still represents the largest prison-based drug treatment effort
attempted in the U.S. to date. State legislation established three criminal justice substance abuse
initiatives: 1) a community-based initiative called the Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration
Program (TAIP), 2) a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) System for inmates on
probation or parole, and 3) an In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) Treatment System. We
briefly describe the third type.
The ITC program consisted of 6 to 12 months of intensive chemical dependency
treatment. Inmates who completed primary treatment in ITC facilities were expected to re-enter
the community through the SAFP system. The ITC system was intended to operate 2,000
0
treatment beds by the end of 1995. Unfortunately, because of the unprecedented numbers of
clients progressing through the system, the effort faced serious implementation problems,
25
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.