Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:36 am
Time: 12:36 am
Results for drug offenders (minnesota)
2 results foundAuthor: Minnesota. Department of Corrections Title: Prison-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment in Minnesota: An Outcome Evaluation Summary: Using a retrospective quasi-experimental design, this study evaluates the effectiveness of CD treatment provided within the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) by comparing recidivism outcomes between treated and untreated offenders released from prison in 2005. As discussed later in more detail, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to individually match the untreated offenders with those who received CD treatment. Similar to the instrumental variable and Heckman approaches used by Pelissier and colleagues (2001), PSM is a method designed to control for selection bias. More specifically, PSM minimizes the threat of selection bias by creating a comparison group whose probability of entering treatment was similar to that of the treatment group. Although PSM has been used in at least one recent study on community-based CD treatment (Krebs, Strom, Koetse, and Lattimore, 2008), this study is one of the first to use it in a prison-based treatment evaluation. In addition to PSM, this study attempts to further control for rival causal factors by analyzing the data with Cox regression, which is widely regarded as the most appropriate multivariate statistical technique for recidivism analyses. Moreover, by comparing 926 treated offenders with a matched group of 926 untreated offenders, the sample size used for this study (N = 1,852) is one of the larger prison-based CD treatment studies to date. Finally, to achieve a more complete understanding of the effects of prison-based treatment, multiple treatment and recidivism measures were used. Despite these strengths, there are several limitations worth noting. First, in measuring the effectiveness of CD treatment, the two most common outcome measures are substance abstention and criminal recidivism. Although abstention is an important and arguably more sensitive measure of CD treatment effectiveness, data on post-release substance use were not IV criteria for substance abuse. Among the criteria for abuse are problems at work or school, not taking care of personal responsibilities, financial problems, engaging in dangerous behavior while intoxicated, legal problems, problems at home or in relationships, and continued use despite experiencing problems. The criteria for dependence, meanwhile, include increased tolerance; withdrawal symptoms; greater use than intended over a relatively long period of time, inability to cut down or quit; a lot of time spent acquiring, using, or recovering from use; missing important family, work, or social activities; and knowledge that continued use would exacerbate a serious medical or psychological condition. Although the vast majority of newly-admitted offenders are considered to be CD abusive or dependent, not all treatment-directed offenders have the opportunity to participate in prison-based treatment since the number of treatment-directed offenders (nearly 3,000 annually) exceeds the number of treatment beds available (about 1,800 annually). The DOC currently uses information relating to offender needs and recidivism risk in prioritizing inmates for treatment. This information, however, was not routinely considered from 2002-2005, the period of time covered in this study. Rather, among offenders directed to treatment, prioritization decisions were based primarily on the amount of time remaining to serve. Offenders with shorter lengths of time until their release from prison were often selected over those with more time to serve. During the 2002-2005 period, the DOC provided CD programming to both male and female offenders in six of the ten state facilities that house adult inmates. Although there are variations among the different programs provided at each facility, all of the CD treatment offered by the DOC is modeled on TC concepts. Housed separately from the rest of the prison population, offenders admitted to treatment were involved in 15-25 hours of programming per week. The CD programs, which maintained a staff-to-inmate ratio of 1:15, emphasized each offender’s personal responsibility for identifying and acknowledging criminal and addictive thinking and behavior. Moreover, the CD programming generally included educational material that addressed the signs and symptoms of CD, the effects of drug use on the body, the effects of chemical use on family and relationships, and the dangers of drug abuse. In addition to completing an autobiography that focused on prior chemical use, program participants completed work relating to relapse prevention. The DOC offered short-term (90 days), medium-term (180 days), and long-term (365 days) CD programming during the 2002-2005 period. The short-term programs, which were primarily psycho-educational with minimal individual counseling, emphasized the relationship between substance abuse issues and criminal behavior. Participants in these programs were expected to increase their level of active participation as they progressed through the program. The medium- and long-term programs, on the other hand, included education, individual counseling, and group counseling components. Therefore, aside from program duration, the main distinction between the short-term programs and the medium- and longterm programs was that the former contained little emphasis on individual or group counseling, primarily due to the relatively short period of time over which to deliver the programming. In 2006, the DOC refocused its CD programs to long-term treatment of at least six months or more. The decision to discontinue the short-term programming was due, in part, to evidence which seemed to suggest that short-term programs are not as effective as ones that are longer in duration (Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, 2006). More specifically, in its report on substance abuse treatment across the state, the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor found that recidivism rates for short-term program participants were higher than those for offenders who participated in medium- and long-term programs. However, the simple bivariate analyses performed by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor did not control for factors known to affect recidivism (e.g., criminal history, age at release, institutional disciplinary history, type of offense, etc.). Therefore, rather than demonstrating that short-term treatment is less effective, the higher recidivism rates for short-term participants may simply reflect that they had, in comparison to the medium- and long-term participants, a greater risk of reoffense prior to entering treatment. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10CDTXEvaluationReport_Revised.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10CDTXEvaluationReport_Revised.pdf Shelf Number: 122374 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsDrug Offenders (Minnesota)Drug TreatmentRecidivism |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Corrections Title: Chemical Dependency Program Evaluation Summary: Substance use figures prominently not only in criminal offending but has also been implicated in the rise of the prison population since the 1980s. From 2002-2007, drug and felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders accounted for 53 percent of the prison population growth within Minnesota. As the volume of drug and DWI offenders entering prison has increased, so, too, has the number of inmates diagnosed as chemically dependent and/or abusive who are in need of chemical dependency (CD) treatment. Using a retrospective quasi-experimental design, this report evaluates the efficacy of CD treatment in Minnesota Department of Corrections (MNDOC) facilities by comparing recidivism rates between offenders who participated in treatment (treatment group) with those who did not (comparison group). Both the treatment and comparison groups contained offenders who were admitted to prison after 2001, directed to CD treatment, and released during 2005. The comparison group consists of 1,096 offenders who were closely matched to the 1,164 offenders in the treatment group on the characteristics used in the statistical analyses. Of the 1,164 offenders in the treatment group, most (N = 671) participated in short-term (i.e., 90 days) treatment programs. Because short-term programs were discontinued by the MNDOC in 2006, this study also assesses the efficacy of medium- and long-term CD programming by comparing reoffense rates between the 493 medium- and long-term treatment participants with a carefully matched comparison group of 493 non-participants. Recidivism — the outcome measure in this study — was quantified as both a felony reconviction and as a reincarceration for a new offense. Results • Of the 1,164 offenders who participated in CD treatment (i.e., the treatment group), 72 percent completed treatment or successfully participated until release. o Results showed that the odds of completing treatment were significantly lower for offenders with discipline convictions, but were significantly higher for female offenders, offenders with longer lengths of stay, and offenders who participated in short-term treatment programs. • At the end of the follow-up period, offenders who participated in CD treatment had significantly lower rates of felony reconviction (15%) and reincarceration (8%) than the comparison group, whose rates were 19 percent for reconvictions and 12 percent for reincarcerations for a new offense. o Regarding treatment outcome, the lowest recidivism rates were found for offenders who successfully participated until release, followed by those who completed treatment. Offenders who quit treatment had the highest recidivism rates. o Regarding program duration, offenders who participated in medium-term programs had the lowest recidivism rates, whereas the highest rates were found for those who entered short-term programs. • Results from the multivariate statistical analyses showed that participation in CD treatment significantly decreased the risk of time to reoffense, reducing it by 23 percent for reconvictions and 31 percent for reincarcerations. • A successful treatment outcome significantly reduced the risk of time to reoffense, decreasing it by 26 percent for reconvictions and 36 percent for reincarcerations. • Similar results were found for the analyses that examined the impact of medium- and long-term CD treatment on recidivism. o Participation in a medium- or long-term CD treatment program reduced the risk of time to reoffense by 30 percent for reconvictions and 42 percent for reincarcerations. o A successful outcome in a medium- or long-term treatment program decreased the risk of time to reoffense by 46 percent for reconvictions and 49 percent for reincarcerations. The results presented in this study suggest that the risk of recidivism is reduced significantly for offenders who participate in prison-based CD treatment, particularly among those with a successful treatment outcome. There are a few limitations with this study, however, that bear consideration. First, in focusing exclusively on recidivism, this evaluation did not include substance abstention as an outcome measure and, thus, may not have fully captured the full effects of CD programming. Second, given the importance of providing a continuum of care from the institution to the community, aftercare programming is considered to be an essential component of effective CD treatment. But due to the absence of post-release treatment data, it is unclear as to whether variations in the extent to which offenders participated in aftercare may have affected the findings presented here. By collecting data on substance use and aftercare programming in the community, research currently being conducted by the MNDOC may eventually shed light on these issues. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-08CDRecidivismEvaluation.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-08CDRecidivismEvaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 114920 Keywords: -Driving While IntoxicatedCorrectional ProgramsDriving Under the InfluenceDrug Offenders (Minnesota)Drug Treatment, PrisonersDrunk DrivingRecidivism |