0 - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

for changes in anxiety over the, although post hoc comparisons revealed that no two means
differed significantly28. The same pattern was found for changes in self-eficacy-- Huntingdon
inmates showed sigdicantly greater improvements than Houtzdale and Waymart inmates;
Cresson and Graterford inmates were in between. Huntingdon inmates showed greater reductions
in hostiEity over time than all other programs except Cresson. Huntingdon inmates showed greater
reductions in risk taking over time than all other programs. Graterford inmates showed the
greatest increases in social conformity over time, while Waymart inmates actually decreased on
this measure. W e there was generally little change in treatment readiness over time, one
program (Cresson) showed a substantial increase, while another (Graterford) showed a substantial
decrease. Programs did not differ significantly on changes in external pressures over time.
While we lacked detailed clinical assessment information on individual inmates, these
0
results suggest that inmates at Houtzdale and Waymart may have psychological needs that are not
being hlly addressed. Huntingdon inmates evidenced the highest levels of improvement in
psychosocial functioning fiom the 1 to time 2, suggesting that the TC at Huntingdon more
explicitly addressed individual inmate needs. Our interview data and observations were consistent
with this interpretation.
Finally, we examined changes in inmate ratings of treatment process fiom time 1 to time 2,
broken down by institution (Table 14). There were no significant differences across the five
programs, although Huntingdon evidenced the greatest improvements in therapeutic engagement.
Huntingdon, Graterford and Cresson inmates also tended to show greater improvement on
personal progress over time. While few differences were observed in changes in treatment
*' Post hoc tests likely failed to detect significant dserences because the overall F-test for
program differences just barely reached statistical significance (.048), and substantial withinprogram
variation (high standard deviations) weakened tests of significance.
84
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.