Comparing Inmate Perceptions of Two Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Abstract

Drug and alcohol abuse by criminal offenders remains at an all time high. Residential substance abuse and treatment (RSAT) programs were developed to address the drug and alcohol treatment needs of inmates in prisons. Typically, such programs range in length from 6 to 12 months, have an Alcoholics Anonymous and/or Narcotics Anonymous component, and occur in a therapeutic community environment. Some programs also include a cognitive self-change component. Inmate participation in their programming is crucial to the success of a therapeutic community treatment environment, yet there is little research on the perceptions of RSAT inmates regarding their programming. In this research, the authors describe, compare, and contrast the perceptions of inmate clients of two RSAT programs in a rural mountain state.

Evaluation of the Therapeutic Community Treatment Model in Thailand: Policy Implications for Compulsory and Prison-Based Treatment

“…Chan, Sorensen, Guydish, Rajima, and Acampora (1997) found a relationship between treatment satisfaction and pretreatment problem severity and duration of treatment, but Joe and Friend (1989) found only modest correlations between satisfaction, length of treatment, and positive resident outcomes for a methadone maintenance program. More recent studies have found that program dropouts are more likely to have had conflicts with the program's rules and view treatment as punishment, while completers tend to view the program as treatment, and they provide more positive evaluations of staff (Inciardi, 1995;Stohr, Hemmens, Shapiro, Chambers, & Kelly, 2002;Strauss & Falkin, 2000). Further, Carlson and Gabriel (2001) found that resident satisfaction with access and effectiveness was associated with 6-month follow-up service utilization as well as 1-year post-treatment abstinence from drugs.…”

A systematic review of evaluations of prison‐based alcohol and other drug use behavioural treatment for men

“…Year of publication: Twelve evaluations were published between 1995 and 2005 25–36 and 13 between 2006 and 2015 37–49 …”

“…Country of origin: Over half the evaluations were of programs in the United States ( n =15), 25–28,31–34,36,38,39,41,43,45,48 there were two each from Canada 37,46 and Taiwan, 29,47 and one each from Australia, 35 Croatia, 30 Japan, 40 Poland, 49 the United Kingdom (Wales), 44 and South Korea 42 …”

“…Format of treatment provided: Four treatment format modes were described: i) residential ( n =6); 25,26,28,29,37,38 ii) therapeutic prison ( n =3); 30,39,40 iii) therapeutic community ( n =8); 31–34,41–43,48 and iv) group treatment ( n =7) 35,36,44–47,49 …”

“…Treatment approach: Seven different treatment approaches were described: i) CBT, or a derivative such as cognitive social therapy ( n =8); 25,26,33,37,40,44,46,47 ii) self‐help, most commonly the Alcoholics Anonymous 12‐step program (n=7); 27–30,33,38,49 iii) psychoeducational approaches (n=6); 29,30,35,37,38,41 iv) a MATRIX model (n=2); 40,41 v) meditational approach (n=2); 39,47 vi) a computerised educational program (n=1); 45 and vii) a Native American therapeutic healing program (n=1) 36 . Several studies only described the treatment approach as being a TC with limited other detail given, even though a TC is not necessarily a treatment approach in the same way as the other treatments (n=7) 31–34,42,43,48 . In terms of post‐prison follow‐up treatment, three TCs and one residential program included post‐prison care, 28,31,32,34 and a therapeutic prison had 12‐step program attendance as a condition for release (although post‐prison attendance was not monitored) 30…”