Therapeutic Communities In Correctional Settings
This section summarizes in bullet form the main findings and recommendations drawn from both the quantitative and qualitative reports of the site reviews. The findings and recommendations presented address the two main aims of Phase II: (1) to assess the utility of a field review protocol and (2) to assess the utility of and revise the Prison Based TC Standards.
A. Utility of the Review Protocol and Process:
Overall, the review protocol was relevant and useful and the review process was feasible and comprehensive. The existing Field Review Protocol (formerly the "Reviewer Worksheet for Criminal Justice TC programs [SEEQ]") is appropriate and useful for assessing whether programs meet the TC standards. However, later versions of this protocol must correspond more closely to the final revisions in the standards themselves. The specific recommendations for revision of the field review protocol and process are noted:
- The Field Review Protocol should include more quality assurance measures of accreditation such as staff education, adequacy to the facility, etc.
- Criteria for weighting the subsections of the standards must be developed to capture the variance within programs in meeting different areas of the standards.
- The field reviewers must be highly experienced in the TC and in the use of the review protocol. Moreover, there must be experiential parity across reviewers who are evaluating different program sites to assure comparability in the quality of accreditation process based upon the review protocol.
- The elements of the review process (e.g. participant observation, assessment of files, interviews with key personnel and residents etc.) are appropriate to assess program compliance with standards. However, the time required to complete an adequate field review must be expanded to at least two days per program rather than two days per prison.
- The field reviewer must be positively perceived by the correctional and clinical staff and the residents as nonintrusive, neutral, and helpful to the program. Such perceptions facilitate voluntary and honest disclosures concerning program elements and culture.
- Some additional components of the process that must be included are attending a staff meeting, assessing whether clinical records are used in the treatment process, and reviewing the staff training program.
Preparation prior to the prison site visit is essential to maximize the efficiency of the field review process. A preparation checklist for program site visits was developed and successfully implemented during phase II. This preparation checklist should be standardized and included in later revisions of the field review protocol.
The Field Review Protocol utilized in Phase II is contained in Appendix A. This document will be revised to include the recommendations from the field review as part of the phase III activities of the project. As with the standards themselves, the Field Review Protocol will be refined through its general use in the field.
B. Utility and Revision of the Prison-Based TC Standards
Overall, the standards were comprehensive, clear, and relevant to assessing the validity of modified TC programming in prisons. The specific recommendations which were considered for revision of the standards are noted.
- The term community member should replace the terms brother and sister to provide a generic concept of the roles of the residents in prison TCs.
- Items must be included which assess capability of the program to meet standards, i.e. limits of the prison setting, standards for programs with and without aftercare capability, and standards for integrating all prison personnel in the TC program.
- Items must be included that reflect the TC treatment goals of eliminating criminal and antisocial behavior and thinking in prison TC admissions.
- Questioning staff concerning their recovery history challenges American Disability Association guidelines.
- Standards should be added that address problems, needs, and issues of special populations.
- Some of the standards are abstract and leave room for interpretation and thereby reviewer differences. Items in each area should provide concrete examples of the TC perspective and approach.
- Standards should include items requiring routine random observation of TC activities, such as meetings and groups by staff to reliably assess quality assurance. Site visits provide a single sample (often biased) of the quality of the activities. The random
observations (analogous to random urine screens) should be conducted at some frequency and recorded in the file with date, activity, and overall rating of the activity.
- Field reviews for purposes of accreditation of the programs based upon these standards require reviewers with special expertise in TC programming, prison treatment, and program quality assurance assessment.
- Accreditation based upon the review protocol must consider factors influencing the program's capacity to comply with the standards. Such factors include the age of the program start up (e.g., early stage, experienced), institutional restrictions (e.g., degree of isolation of the program from the general population in prisons, prison referral pathways, and classification criteria), limits of funding resources, and the presence of appropriate aftercare services. Overall the standards should include items that assess the minimal requirements to support the capability of the program.
- Compliance with the TC prisons standards should be appropriately assessed in terms of particular client characteristics and special needs (e.g., MICAs, females, juveniles, sex offenders). Funding and training resources must be available to improve the program's capability to address these special needs.
