Prison-based therapeutic community substance abuse programs - Implementation and operational issues

Federal Probation

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 3-8+1

  Burdon, William M ^a   Farabee, David ^a   Prendergast, Michael L ^a   Messina, Nena P ^a   Cartier, Jerome ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036915592     PISSN: 00149128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anglin, M. D. (1988). The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86, pp. 8-34). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
2. Burdon, W. M., Roll, J. M., Prendergast, M. L., & Rawson, R. (2001). Drug courts and contingency management. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 73-90.
3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001a). Prisoners in 2000 (NCJ 188207). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001b). Probation and parole in the United States, 2000 - Press release (NCJ 188208) Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S. Department of Justice.
5. California Department of Corrections. (2000). California prisoners and parolees-2000 preliminary. Sacramento, CA: Offender Information Services Branch, California Department of Corrections.
6. California Department of Corrections. (2001a). CDCfacts-Third quarter 2001. Sacramento, CA: Offender Information Services Branch, California Department of Corrections.
7. California Department of Corrections. (2001b). CDC facts-Fourth quarter 2001. Sacramento, CA: Offender Information Services Branch, California Department of Corrections.
8. California Department of Corrections. (2001c). Office of substance abuse programs: Weekly in-prison population report-November 6, 2001. Sacramento, CA: Office of Substance Abuse Programs, California Department of Corrections.
9. De Leon, G. (1993). What psychologists can learn from addiction treatment research. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 7, 103-109.
10. De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
11. Farabee, D., Prendergast, M. L., & Anglin, M. D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3-10.
12. Farabee, D., Prendergast, M. L., Cartier, J., Wexler, H., Knight, K., & Anglin, M. D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional treatment programs. Prison Journal, 79(2), 150-162.
13. Field, G. (1984). The cornerstone program: A client outcome study. Federal Probation, 48, 50-55.
14. Field,G. (1989). A study of the effects of intensive treatment on reducing the criminal recidivism of addicted offenders. Federal Probation, 53(10), 51-56.
15. Field, G. (1998). From the institution to the community. Corrections Today, 60(6), 94-97, 113.
16. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp.117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17. Greenley, J. R. (1992). Neglected organizational and management issues in mental health systems development. Community Mental Health Journal, 28(5), 371-384.
18. Hall, E. A., Baldwin, D. M., & Prendergast, M. L. (2001). Women on parole: Barriers to success after substance abuse treatment. Human Organization, 60(3), 225-233.
19. Harrison, L. D., & Martin, S. S. (2000). Residential substance abuse treatment for state prisoners formula grant: Compendium of program implementation and accomplishments. Final report. Newark, DE: Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies, University of Delaware.
20. Hser, Y., Anglin, M. D., & Powers, K. I. (1993). A 24-year follow-up of California narcotics addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(7), 577-584.
21. Hser, Y. I., Hoffman, V., Grella, C. E., & Anglin, M. D. (2001). A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 503-508.
22. Inciardi, J. A. (1996). The therapeutic community: An effective model for corrections-based drug abuse treatment. In K. Early (Ed.), Drug treatment behind bars: Prison based strategies for change. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
23. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. Prison Journal, 79(3), 337-351.
24. Leukefeld, C. G., & Tims, F. M. (1988). Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86, Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. ADM 89-1578, pp. 236-249). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25. Lowe, L. (1995). A profile of the young adult offender in California prisons as of December 31, 1994 (Prepared for the Substance Abuse Research Consortium, Spring 1995). Sacramento: Office of Substance Abuse Programs, California Department of Corrections.
26. Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. Prison Journal, 79(3), 294-320.
27. McGlothlin, W. H., Anglin, M. D., & Wilson, B. D. (1977). An evaluation of the California civil addicts program, (NIDA Services Research Monograph Series, Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. ADM 78558). Rockviile, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
28. Moore, G. E., ScMears, D. P. (2001). Strong science for strong practice: Linking research to drug treatment in the criminal justice system. Views of practitioners. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
29. Pan, H., Scarpitti, F. R., Inciardi, J. A., & Lockwood, D. (1993). Some considerations on therapeutic communities in corrections. In J. A. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 30-43). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
30. Pelissier, B., Rhodes, W., Saylor, W., Gaes, G., Camp, S., Vanyur, S. D., & Wallace, S. (2000). TRIAD drug treatment evaluation project: Final report of three-year outcomes. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.
31. Prendergast, M. L., & Burdon, W. M. (2001). Integrated systems of care for substance abusing offenders. In C. Leukefeld, F. Tims & D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues. New York: Springer.
32. Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E., Wellisch, J., & Baldwin, D. (1999). A process evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse Treatment Program-(Final Report, Grant 97-RT-VX-K003, submitted to the National Institute of Justice). Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center.
33. Prendergast, M. L., Wellisch, J., & Wong, M. (1996). Residential treatment for women parolees following prison drug treatment: Treatment experiences, needs and services, outcomes. Prison Journal, 76(3), 253-274.
34. Rose, S. J., Zweben, A., & Stoffel, V. (1999). Interfaces between substance abuse treatment and other health and social systems. In B. S. McCrady & E. B. Epstein (Eds.), Addictions: A Comprehensive Guidebook. New York Oxford UP.
35. Simpson, D. D. (2001). Modeling treatment process and outcomes. Addiction, 96(2), 207-211.
36. Simpson, D. D., & Friend, H. J. (1988). Legal status and long-term outcomes for addicts in the DARP follow-up project. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86, Department of Health and Human Services number (ADM)89-1578, pp. 81-98). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37. Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (2001). The TCU model of treatment process and outcomes in correctional settings. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 1(4), 51-53, 58.
38. Taxman, F. S. (1998). Reducing recidivism through a seamless system of care: Components of effective treatment, supervision, and transition services in the community. (Prepared for Office of National Drug Control Policy Treatment and Criminal Justice System Conference). Greenbelt, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.
39. Wexler, H. K. (1996, November). The Amity prison TC evaluation: Inmate profiles and reincarceration outcomes. Presented tot the California Department of Corrections, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, Sacramento, CA.
40. Wexler, H. K., Blackmore, J., & Lipton, D. S. (1991). Project REFORM: Developing a drug abuse treatment strategy for corrections. Journal of Druglssues, 21(2), 469-490.
41. Wexler, H. K., De Leon, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 147-167.
42. Wexler, H. K., Falkin, G. P., Lipton, D. S., & Rosenblum, A. B. (1992). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails (NIDA Research Monograph 118, Department of Health and Human Services Pub No. [ADM] 92-1884, pp.156-175) Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
43. Wexler, H., & Love, C. (1994). Therapeutic communities in prison. In F. Tims, G. De Leon & N. Jainchill (Eds.), Therapeutic community: Advances in Research and Application (NIDA Research Monograph Series 144, pp. 181-208). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
44. Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. Prison Journal, 79(3), 312-336.