My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional Center in Virginia, 1998-2000

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : clinical data, survey data, and administrative records data
Creator
  • Gordon, Jill A. (Virginia Commonwealth University)
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2003-01-31
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
correctional facilities (juveniles); drug treatment; inmate attitudes; juvenile offenders; recidivism; substance abuse treatment; treatment outcome; treatment programs
Description
  • Abstract

    This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.
  • Abstract

    Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered treatment in the areas of substance abuse, sex offender education, individual and group therapy, skills counseling, and educational and vocational training to the youth. However, services were provided on an "as needed" basis. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment program at Barrett by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment they completed.
  • Abstract

    The sample consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on each youth's treatment progress at the time of discharge, which included phase of treatment completed, scores from the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), and whether the youth had a mandatory or recommended need for substance abuse treatment. The researcher also followed up by examining case files for all youths released. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youth, which included SASSI scores, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) scores. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning the actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police provided additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Each youth's parole officer was sent data collection instruments three, six, and 12 months after the youth was released from his institution. A reminder letter was also sent to parole officers two weeks after the initial mailing of the data collection instrument. Parole officers provided data on recidivism and assessed the substance use of the youth and the youth's progress toward meeting the conditions of parole.
  • Abstract

    Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: Scales used were Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), and an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Not available.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS1: Dataset
Temporal Coverage
  • 1998-07-01 / 2001-06-30
    Time period: 1998-07-01--2001-06-30
  • 1998-07-01 / 2001-06-30
    Collection date: 1998-07-01--2001-06-30
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
  • Virginia
Sampled Universe
Youths with substance abuse problems who were released from Virginia juvenile correctional centers between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2000.
Sampling
Matched comparison sampling.
Collection Mode
  • The user guide and codebook are provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Note
2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (99-RT-VX-K024).
Availability
Delivery
This version of the study is no longer available on the web. If you need to acquire this version of the data, you have to contact ICPSR User Support (help@icpsr.umich.edu).
Alternative Identifiers
  • 3538 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR03538.v1
Publications
  • Harrison, Lana D., Martin, Steven S.. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners: Implementation Lessons Learned. NCJ 195738, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2003.
    • ID: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/195738.pdf (URL)
  • Gordon, Jill A.. Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it Effective? A Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional Center, Final Report. NCJ 196668, Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University [producer], United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice [distributor]. 2002.
    • ID: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196668.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

Gordon, Jill A. (2003): Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional Center in Virginia, 1998-2000. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03538