Research Matrix

matrix

Uploaded by

andre Sy

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

11 views3 pages

Research Matrix

matrix

Uploaded by

andre Sy

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 3

Author, Year, Title

(17) Jason et al, 2015

Evaluating Alternative Aftercare Models for Ex-Offenders

Main Issue(s)

Many of these ex-offenders are released from prison with ongoing drug addictions. While many factors
contribute to criminal recidivism, such as lack of employment or housing, the strongest predictor of
criminal recidivism is substance use. Regrettably, the process of integrating ex-offenders into society
after release is often poorly implemented. One of the most effective ways of reducing criminal
recidivism is through substance abuse treatment and intensive prison-based drug treatment programs
(pg 53)

1) Examined the role played by aftercare following (mainly) inpatient community based treatment in
the outcomes of criminal ex-offenders with substance use disorders (abstract)

1) A key question is whether community-based recovery supports can have an effect on the high costs
of substance abuse to our society (pg 54)

Method/ Sample Size

1) A total of 270 adults (224 men, 46 women) agreed to participate in the Chicago metropolitan area. All
participants were recruited through inpatient substance abuse treatment facilities or reentry/case
management programs. Ninety-three percent of the participants (n = 251) were recruited from inpatient
treatment facilities where they were receiving inpatient services. 5% of the participants (n = 13) were
referred to the project through inpatient treatment facilities, although the participants themselves were
not receiving inpatient services at the time of recruitment. Two percent of the participants (n = 6) were
referred through reentry/case management services.

2) Recruitment began in March 2008 and continued through May 2011. Participants eligible for inclusion
were above the age of 18, recovering from alcohol and drug dependence, and had been released from
prison or jail within the past 24 months. Participants were excluded from the study if they refused
random condition assignment or had been convicted of violent crimes or sex offenses. This latter
exclusion was due to the TC not accepting these types of high-risk clients, so we had to impose similar
recruitment restrictions on all conditions. Of the participants approached, 26 were excluded for
eligibility violations (no substance use, no criminal history, convicted of violent crimes, etc.), 13 were not
interested in the study, and 15 refused their random condition assignment. (pg 55/ 56)

Findings

1) A major finding in this study was that dose appears to be critical for positive substance use and
income outcome variables, although not for legal issues, incarcerations, and psychiatric hospitalizations.

2) We did not find support for our main hypothesis, which was that TCs would be more effective in
creating a stable abstinence support system and helping residents find and maintain abstinence and
employment as well as reduce recidivism compared with OHs or UA. Although days using alcohol and
days using drugs were not significant for the three conditions over the different waves, those in the OH
condition achieved significantly higher continuous sobriety rates. For money received from employment
and number of paid days worked, those in the OH condition did better than those in TC. No significant
differences were found for illegal income obtained.

3) We also found that costs were lower and benefits in terms of earned income were higher for the OH
condition. These findings suggest that the OH condition had the best cost– benefit outcomes.

4) Our study found that higher doses of OH and TC treatment led to better outcomes on substance use
and employment variables (pg 64/ 65)

Future Research

Future research needs to be directed to the OH, TC, and UA social ecology itself, which might be the
active ingredient in a successful residence experience for the recovering person with a substance use
disorder.

How do new residents fit into this ecology—or fail to?

What do they need to take away from it to put their lives back together?

Are there more systematic ways prospective residents could prepare for a successful stay?

How do residents’ relationships within the OH and TC, as well as within their own (non-house) personal
networks, interact to fulfill recovery requirements?

The answers to such questions would help us understand the way OH and TC cultures develop, are
maintained, and are extended to new residents, and how this process interacts with residents’ attempts
to refashion their personal networks to support their recoveries
The present study compared associated economic costs and benefits of staffed TC versus these OH
community-based housing, and findings suggest that OH recovery homes were more successful in
providing help for those needing treatment aftercare, but much work remains to determine the process
by which clients are helped with these types of aftercare settings (pg 66)