0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
IV. RESULTS<br />
Process Evaluation Findings<br />
Our sample of TC programs at five different prisons enabled comparisons of<br />
implementation differences across sites. Programmatic differences (e.g., duration, intensity,<br />
structure) may influence treatment process (e.g., treatment engagement) as well as outcomes<br />
(relapse and recidivism).<br />
Sources of data included the following: (1) written program descriptions prepared for each<br />
of the five TC programs (see Appendix 7), (2) inmate interviews conducted with 53 TC inmates<br />
at the five prisons, (3) results fiom a previous Suvey of Drug and Alcohol Programs (Welsh,<br />
20OOa), (4) inmate ratings of treatment process (i-e., several scales fiom the REST), and (5)<br />
program records collected by researchers, including monthly admission and discharge information,<br />
program mission statements, inmate handbooks, and operational manuals.<br />
Several major TC program descriptors are summarized in Table 7. First, the five TC units<br />
varied in terms of size. Two units had 100 or more beds. Large units make it more dacult to<br />
properly implement the TC philosophy, which depends upon positive peer interactions and close<br />
staff supervision. At Waymart, the TC is subdivided into two separate units, one upstairs and one<br />
downstairs. The two units have separate TC meetings, although they share some of the same<br />
treatment groups and the same treatment staff. Houtzdale, on the other hand, has the dficult task<br />
of monitoring and supervising complex interactions between 124 inmates who all live on the same<br />
unit. The potential for “chaos,” as several inmates told us, is high. Morning meetings are held in<br />
the cavernous central area of the unit, where hearing (and participation) is dif3icult. Such factors<br />
(I)<br />
are discussed in detail elsewhere and will not be repeated here (Welsh, 2000b).<br />
68<br />
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of <strong>Justice</strong>. This report has not<br />
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)<br />
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of <strong>Justice</strong>.