Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: An outcome evaluation

Journal of Experimental Criminology volume 6, pages 57–81 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Using a retrospective quasi-experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of prison-based chemical dependency (CD) treatment by examining recidivism outcomes among 1,852 offenders released from Minnesota correctional facilities during 2005. Because recidivism data were collected on the 1,852 offenders through the end of 2008, the average follow-up period was 42 months. To minimize the threat of selection bias, propensity score matching was used to create a comparison group of 926 untreated offenders who were not, for the most part, significantly different from the 926 treated offenders. Results from the Cox regression analyses revealed that participating in prison-based CD treatment significantly reduced the hazard ratio for recidivism by 17–25%. Although dropping out of treatment did not increase the risk of recidivism, completing treatment significantly lowered it by 20–27%. The findings also suggest that long-term treatment programs were not as effective as short- or medium-term programs in reducing the risk of recidivism. The study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The instrumental variable approach involves locating a variable that is related to selection into treatment but is unrelated to the outcome variable. The variance from the instrumental variable is then used to estimate the impact of treatment on the outcome measure. The Heckman method, on the other hand, requires that the selection pressures be jointly modeled into the sample and post-release outcome (Pelissier et al. 2001).

  2. In Minnesota, the sentences for offenders committed to the Commissioner of Corrections consist of two parts: a minimum prison term equal to two-thirds of the total executed sentence, and a supervised release term equal to the remaining one-third.

  3. The “governing offense” is the crime carrying the sentence on which an offender’s scheduled release date is based. Although offenders may be imprisoned for multiple offenses, each with its own sentence, the governing offense is generally the most serious crime for which an offender is incarcerated.

  4. The greedy procedure is a matching algorithm that generates fixed matches. In contrast, optimal matching algorithms produce matches after reconsidering all previously made matches.

  5. The 1,199 offenders include the 1,164 who participated in treatment and the 35 who refused to enter treatment.

  6. It is worth noting that results from Cox regression models analyzing treatment outcome and program duration based on matches from the treatment participation propensity score model were similar to those reported in this study. That is, completing treatment significantly reduced recidivism, whereas dropping out of treatment had no effect. Similarly, for program duration, short-term programs significantly decreased recidivism, while long-term programs did not have a statistically significant impact. Medium-term programs significantly reduced rearrest and reconviction, but did not have a statistically significant effect on reincarceration.

References

  • Beck, A. J., & Gilliard, D. K. (1995). Prisoners in 1994. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (2003). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete, T. A., & Gangl, M. (2004). Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociological Methodology, 34, 271–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, G. (1985). The cornerstone program: a client outcome study. Federal Probation, 48, 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, & Butzin, C. A. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 88–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JFA Associates. (2007). Public safety, public spending: Forecasting America’s prison population, 2007–2011. Washington, D.C: Pew Charitable Trusts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karberg, J. C., & James, D. J. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klebe, K., & O’Keefe, M. (2004). Outcome evaluation of the crossroads to freedom and peer I therapeutic communities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., Chatham, L. R., & Camacho, L. M. (1997). An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas’ in-prison therapeutic community program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K., Simpson, D., & Hiller, M. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes in prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79, 337–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C. P., Strom, K. J., Koetse, W. H., & Lattimore, P. K. (2008). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers. Crime & Delinquency, Online First.

  • Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Department of Corrections (2007a). Chemical dependency treatment services in prison. St. Paul, MN.

  • Minnesota Department of Corrections (2007b). Minnesota prison population projections—fiscal year 2007 report. St. Paul, MN.

  • Minnesota Department of Corrections (2008). Drug offenders in prison. St. Paul, MN.

  • Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (2006). Substance abuse treatment. St. Paul, MN.

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the literature. The Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patenaude, A. L., & Laufersweiller-Dwyer, D. L. (2002). Arkansas comprehensive substance abuse treatment program: Process evaluation of the modified therapeutic community (Tucker Unit). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, F. S., & Lipton, D. S. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79, 384–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellisier, B., Rhodes, W., Saylor, W., Gaes, G., Camp, S. D., Vanyur, S. D., et al. (2001). TRIAD drug treatment evaluation project final report of three-year outcomes. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Evaluation and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M. L., Elizabeth, E. A., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2004). Amity prison-based therapeutic community: 5-year outcomes. The Prison Journal, 84, 36–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 757–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabol, W. J., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prisoners in 2006. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, 448–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, W. (2002). Evaluation of prison based drug treatment in Pennsylvania: A research collaboration between the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Center for Public Policy at Temple University, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, W. (2007). A multisite evaluation of prison-based therapeutic community drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1481–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, H. K., Falkin, G. P., & Lipton, D. S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, H., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79, 321–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang, M. (1958). The patterns of criminal homicide. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this study are not necessarily those of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The author wishes to thank the Editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN, 55108-5219, USA

    Grant Duwe

Authors
  1. Grant Duwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant Duwe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duwe, G. Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: An outcome evaluation. J Exp Criminol 6, 57–81 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9090-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9090-8

Keywords

  • Substance abuse
  • Chemical dependency
  • Drug treatment
  • Prison
  • Recidivism
  • Propensity score matching

Search

Navigation