Recommendations of the Texas Comptroller

Improve Correctional
Substance Abuse Treatment

Summary

Despite having the largest prison system in the nation and the second-highest rate of per capita incarceration, Texas again faces an impending shortage of prison beds. Almost 15,000 more correctional beds will be needed by 2005, at an estimated cost of $500 million. A major factor contributing to the growing prison population is drug and alcohol abuse. National studies show that alcohol and drugs are involved in about 80 percent of crimes that put people behind bars. Texas should improve its treatment programs to reduce the need for more prisons.

Background

Texas has the largest prison system in the US and the second-highest rate of per capita incarceration, after Louisiana.[1] In the late 1990s, one in 20 Texans was in jail or prison, or on probation or parole.[2]

One reason that so many Texans are involved in the criminal justice system is a disturbing growth in drug or alcohol-related crimes. In 1988, 12.1 percent of the prison population was incarcerated for drug or DWI (driving while intoxicated) offenses. Ten years later, that population more than doubled to 25.0 percent.[3]

The rate of drug- and alcohol-related admissions to the state’s prison system is increasing. In 1998, individuals with drug or DWI offenses accounted for 36.2 percent of new commitments to Texas prisons, compared to 22.4 percent in 1988.[4] This means that in 1998, one in four Texas inmates was imprisoned on drug- or alcohol-related charges, but over a third of all new inmates were admitted for such offenses.[5] Currently, 53 percent of confinees in Texas state jails are serving time for drug-related crimes.[6]

The problem is even more pervasive than these statistics suggest. According to the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA), 59 percent of probationers and 63 percent of prison inmates are substance abusers or substance-dependent.[7] TCADA found that 39 percent of offenders surveyed admitted being drunk or high at the time they committed their crime.[8] TCADA also reports that 20 percent of inmates surveyed had spent more each week on drugs than they legally earned, with a median weekly drug expenditure of $660.[9]

The cost of alcohol and drug abuse to Texans is staggering. A 1998 TCADA study estimated the annual cost at $19.3 billion or $1,001 per Texan. Alcohol abuse cost the state the most at $11.7 billion; illicit drug use cost the state $6.1 billion; and the combined abuse of alcohol and drugs cost the state $1.5 billion.

Within this total, productivity losses accounted for $8 billion, premature death $3.9 billion, crime $2.4 billion, motor vehicle crashes $427 million, social welfare $16 million, fire destruction $34 million, victims of crime $257 million, incarceration $1.4 billion, criminal careers $345 million, and diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis, and perinatal substance exposure $913 million. Alcohol and substance abuse treatment, however, accounted for only $1.5 billion, or less than 8 percent of the total cost.[10]

Alcohol- and drug-related crimes are hardly unique to Texas. In fact, drug-involved offenders comprise the majority of the incarcerated population across the country.[11] National studies show that alcohol abuse and drugs are involved in almost 80 percent of the crimes that put people behind bars.[12] One in three US prisoners reports being under the influence of drugs when arrested, and one in six commits the offense to get money for drugs.[13]

Several states are undertaking large-scale treatment initiatives to combat the pervasiveness of drug- and alcohol-related offenses and their high costs. By 2003, New York will be the first state to offer all nonviolent substance-abusing offenders an opportunity to receive treatment in lieu of prison time.[14] In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, a ballot initiative that requires probation and substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration for offenders convicted of the possession, use, or transportation of illegal drugs.[15] Florida will spend $500 million on programs to reduce illicit drug use over the next five years.[16]

Such moves mirror a major shift in emphasis toward correctional treatment. In December 1999, Barry McCaffrey, the nation’s “Drug Czar,” urged states and the federal penal system to mandate drug treatment for drug- and alcohol-dependent offenders.[17]

When other states and the federal government are willing to commit considerable resources and millions of dollars to correctional substance abuse treatment, there should be a review of the success of treatment programs. Research shows, however, that not all programs are effective. Therefore, it is prudent for Texas to examine the defining characteristics of successful programs before committing additional resources to such efforts.

Does Treatment Really Work?

Compelling evidence shows that treatment programs can work if designed and implemented properly. A Federal Bureau of Prisons evaluation showed that inmates who received substance abuse treatment were 73 percent less likely than untreated inmates to be rearrested in the first six months after release from prison. In addition, urine test results demonstrated a 44 percent reduction in the use of drugs during those months.[18]

Recent evaluations of Delaware’s Key-Crest and California’s Amity prison-based therapeutic communities show that, compared to untreated inmates, drug-involved inmates who complete prison-based and aftercare drug treatment are significantly less likely to return to drug use and crime following release.[19] One difficulty these programs face, is getting inmates to complete treatment. Inmates who drop out of treatment often have higher rates of recidivism than the general inmate population.[20]

Correctional substance abuse treatment, if administered correctly, can save between $4 and $10 for every dollar invested, largely through reduced recidivism rates.[21] Texas’ correctional substance abuse programs, however, have not produced such stellar results. According to the Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC), “...there was no reduction in recidivism associated with IPTC (in-prison therapeutic community) program participation, and therefore, there are no savings associated with reduced reincarceration costs.” CJPC found that for both the substance abuse felony punishment facilities and IPTCs, “the state lost $1 for each $1 of program costs.”[22]

CJPC is studying correctional substance abuse treatment outcomes, including post-release recidivism rates, and will present its findings to the Legislature in 2001.

Elements of Successful Treatment Initiatives

Evaluations of state and federal treatment initiatives show that effective correctional treatment systems contain the following key elements: high quality, adequate aftercare as a fundamental part of the treatment experience, and a well-coordinated continuum of care.[23]

Quality programs use accurate and dependable screening and assessment tools to identify the most qualified participants and match them with appropriate treatment. Research indicates that targeting intensive, high-quality treatment programs to offenders with serious drug problems is the most cost-effective. For example, an evaluation of the Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities programs in several states found intensive treatment programs produce the best outcomes with serious or “hard-core” drug users.[24]

When treatment resources are limited, offenders who acknowledge their drug or alcohol problems and want help should receive preference over other offenders. A 1993 survey of male Texas inmates found that about half of respondents were interested in participating in a drug or alcohol treatment program. Moreover, half of these, or about 25 percent of the total sample, even said they would be willing to extend their prison stay for three months to receive it.[25]

Correctional treatment providers must recruit and retain well-trained employees to maintain the integrity of a treatment program. One of the biggest obstacles to quality treatment is the hiring, training, and retention of qualified treatment staff, particularly when prisons are located in rural or remote areas. Compounding this problem is the fact that counselors in correctional settings often are paid less than counselors in community-based programs.

After an inmate is released from prison or a correctional treatment program, a program should provide a minimum of three months and preferably 12 months of treatment aftercare. Recent research shows that without aftercare, in-prison treatment may have minimal effect.[26] In fact, one evaluation found that inmates participating in prison treatment programs without aftercare had similar long-term post-treatment outcomes to inmates receiving no treatment at all.[27]

Despite its importance, low rates of aftercare attendance and completion are common and seriously diminish positive results of prison-based treatment. Reasons for failure to enter and complete aftercare treatment are numerous, but a common cause is revocation of parole or probation due to a technical violation, such as evidence of drug use. Because inmates who complete correctional drug treatment programs usually are placed under intensive supervision upon release, they face a higher probability of being detected in drug use and returned to prison than inmates who receive no treatment.[28]

Judges and probation and parole officers must have choices other than prison to deal with technical violations. Like other chronic illnesses, drug and alcohol addiction are ongoing conditions, and offenders with drug problems are likely to relapse.

Correctional and other related federal, state, and community agencies must coordinate their efforts for treatment to succeed. Perhaps most important is the need for a seamless continuity of treatment during and after incarceration. Efforts to ensure a smooth transition should begin at least three months prior to the inmates’ parole release date.[29]

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Substance Abuse Treatment

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) provides a wide variety and large number of treatment options for offenders, ranging from self-help groups to intensive long-term treatment programs.

TDCJ established its Program and Services Division to coordinate offender treatment programs. The division currently offers seven major types of treatment:

Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFP) – As a condition of probation or as a modification to probation or parole, judges can sentence offenders directly to these nine- to 12-month intensive therapeutic community treatment programs. Under the direction of the State Jail Division, 12 SAFPs can provide treatment to more than 4,500 offenders. Upon program completion, offenders are placed under the supervision of their local community supervision and corrections department (CSCD) and required to participate in a community-based residential aftercare program for up to three months, followed by up to a year in outpatient counseling.

In-Prison Therapeutic Community (IPTC) – Based on screening and offender history information, the parole board votes on offenders who are eligible to participate in these nine- to 12-month intensive in-prison therapeutic community treatment programs. Currently, the Institutional Division has a 500-bed male facility and a 300-bed female facility to provide treatment to inmates within a year of release. As with SAFP graduates, IPTC graduates are required to participate in a community-based residential aftercare program for up to three months, followed by up to a year of outpatient counseling.

Pre-Release Substance Abuse Program – These four- and six-month intensive treatment programs are provided as another treatment option for prison inmates with serious drug problems who are within nine months of release. Provided by two facilities, the program’s current treatment capacity is 1,300.

State Jail Substance Abuse Treatment Program – Offenders who commit fourth-degree felonies can be sentenced to no more than two years in a state jail. Under the direction of the State Jail Division, inmates in state jails are screened for drug use and assessed for possible placement in one of four types of programs: alcohol/drug education, a 10-hour self-help program, a pre-treatment program, or a four- to six-month therapeutic community treatment program. About 2,500 offenders participate in one of these four programs at any given time. In addition, all inmates have the option of participating in a self-help group.

Institutional Substance Abuse Educational Program – All prison inmates are required to participate in a 26-hour drug education program. More than 1,400 offenders a month participate in this program. A voluntary aftercare component, called Recovery Dynamics, is provided to those who successfully complete the program. In addition, over 1,000 inmates identified as having drug-related problems participate each month in a 10-hour self-help education program that introduces them to the concept of twelve-step programs. All inmates are allowed to participate in 12-step groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous.

Transitional Treatment Centers (Residential and Outpatient Treatment) – Under parole supervision, successful graduates of the IPTC and SAFP programs are required to participate in aftercare treatment at Transitional Treatment Centers (TTCs), which includes up to three months of community-based residential treatment followed by up to a year of outpatient counseling. In addition, substance abuse counselors encourage parolees to participate in 12-step programs and other peer support organizations. The TDCJ Parole Division typically contracts with local treatment providers for outpatient counseling.

Community-based Programs – Texas’ local probation departments, now called CSCDs, often provide treatment as an alternative to incarceration. TDCJ’s Community Justice Assistance Division provides some jurisdictions with funding for treatment services. For example, one state-funded program is the Treatment Alternative to Incarceration Program, which provides funding for the screening and assessment needed to identify offenders who could benefit most from community-based treatment. Eligibility for treatment programs within the community is based on an individual’s inability to afford treatment and a lack of other available programs to treat the offender. These programs are restricted to individuals arrested for offenses greater than a Class C misdemeanor. Treatment options include community-based residential treatment programs, such as substance abuse treatment facilities and court residential treatment centers, of varying length and treatment philosophy. These programs currently have the capacity to treat nearly 3,000 males and over 400 females. [30]

TDCJ also provides a number of other treatment-related services. For example, the Parole Division conducts alcohol and drug testing as part of supervision and often contracts for beds in residential, relapse, and detoxification programs. The division also provides 12-step programs and specialized caseloads, with fewer parolees assigned to agents with specialized knowledge in a particular area. Similarly, CSCDs often provide specialized caseloads, DWI community supervision, and in-house treatment programs.

Weaknesses in TDCJ’s Substance Abuse Treatment System

Several major challenges confront correctional treatment efforts in Texas, including inadequate programming, a lack of centralized oversight and fiscal accountability, and a lack of emphasis on aftercare.

Need for Quality Programming

According to CJPC, Texas’ correctional substance abuse treatment efforts have suffered due to TDCJ’s frenetic pace of program development and expansion—5,300 beds in three years.[31] The speed of implementation affected program quality in a number of ways. The agency spent too little time selecting appropriate inmates or offenders for treatment, experienced problems with staff retention and training, and inadequately developed the post-release aftercare program.

TDCJ’s treatment system does not use uniform screening and referral criteria. Each division may use different criteria to select program participants and make treatment placements.[32] Appropriate selection of treatment candidates is complicated further by the fact that judges may make treatment referrals using completely different screening tools. For example, some county judges use broad assessment instruments that are likely to result in a referral to treatment for nearly every offender, including those who may not need it, while other judges use a more conservative instrument that is less likely to result in treatment referrals. This inconsistency can undermine and weaken overall treatment effectiveness.

Another problem is that not all TDCJ treatment programs address criminal behaviors. Most criminals have developed unhealthy thought patterns that allow them to justify illicit or victimizing behaviors, to blame others for their poor choices, or to avoid taking responsibility for criminal actions. Substance abuse treatment alone will not necessarily reduce recidivism in such cases; programs also must address criminal patterns and behaviors. For example, in a study of criminally active narcotics users, researchers found that 23 percent of the study sample continued to commit crimes regardless of fluctuations in their drug usage.[33]

Finally, a glaring weakness in TDCJ’s treatment program is the lack of treatment available to incarcerated drunk drivers. Alcohol abusers outnumber illicit drug users by nearly two to one, nationally.[34] In 1998, 4,229 people were in a TDCJ prison for DWI convictions.[35] These individuals are likely to have serious drinking problems and may commit additional drunk driving offenses once released. Although TDCJ released 2,355 DWI offenders in 1998, very few if any had access to treatment while in prison.[36]

Lack of Centralized Oversight

Another problem plaguing TDCJ’s correctional treatment system is its lack of centralized oversight. The Institutional, Parole, Community Justice Assistance, and State Jail Divisions all provide treatment services. Although TDCJ’s Programs and Services Division is designed to oversee all TDCJ treatment services, it primarily oversees those administered within prisons, substance abuse felony punishment facilities, and state jails.

The Parole Division oversees Transitional Treatment Centers (TTCs), treatment facilities similar to halfway houses, and contracts for aftercare treatment for SAFP and IPTC graduates. By contrast, the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) oversees treatment provided by CSCDs and the Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration funding provided to local probation departments.

This highly fragmented approach to screening and selecting candidates, making referrals to treatment, and program oversight often results in treatment inconsistencies, lack of continuity, and duplicated effort. For example, graduates of an In-Prison Therapeutic Community program often are released to TTCs that take a vastly different approach to treatment.[37] Prison-based treatment programs often endorse loud verbal confrontations, while such confrontations in a TTC can lead to expulsion.[38]

An example of duplicated efforts can be found in the field of auditing responsibilities. The Parole Division audits TTC programs to verify contractual compliance, while the Program and Services Division conducts a separate audit for TTC compliance and program content. Training efforts also could be better coordinated. For example, TDCJ’s Programs and Services and Community Justice Assistance Divisions each provide independent training for their staff members instead of sharing resources and expertise.[39]

TDCJ treatment programs also lack good performance measures. Currently, TDCJ is unable to demonstrate which programs are most effective in reducing recidivism and why.[40] Without such data, it is difficult to allocate resources effectively and efficiently or make good choices when selecting treatment providers. Also, while TDCJ can provide financial information on the overall cost of treatment per day, the agency cannot provide information on the cost of treatment per offender.

Lack of Aftercare

One of the most serious shortcomings of TDCJ’s treatment system is the lack of attention to aftercare. The first months after release are critical for probationers or parolees, because they must rejoin their communities—and the possible negative influences that surrounded them before conviction. Consequently, probation and parole departments often use community residential centers or “halfway houses” as part of an offender’s gradual release to the community. Studies show that treated offenders who receive aftercare are between one-third and one-half as likely as untreated offenders to be rearrested or returned to custody.[41]

Texas’ correctional treatment efforts, however, consistently place greater emphasis on institutional treatment than on developing critical community treatment links upon release. As noted above, research shows that parolees lose virtually all gains made during in-prison therapy if treatment does not continue after release. Compounding this problem is that TTCs or other forms of aftercare often are unavailable for parolees or probationers returning to their home counties. In many rural communities, drug rehabilitation resources are limited to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and AA is a support group, not a treatment provider. In addition, some AA groups operating outside the prison system, especially in rural areas, are hesitant to welcome new members with a criminal history. Ex-offenders may have greater success at staying clean and sober if they are released to areas of the state where treatment, support services, and employment are available.

At present, it is far too easy for ex-offenders to fall through the cracks of aftercare programming. One reason is that interagency cooperation often breaks down when an offender is released from TDCJ. For example, an ex-convict with psychiatric problems may be released from TDCJ’s substance abuse treatment program with a 10-day supply of medication. The Texas Commission on Offenders with Mental Impairments is charged with organizing aftercare for such individuals and works with the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR) to ensure continuity of medical care and medication. Frequently, however, local MHMR offices will refuse service, because the ex-convict hasn’t lived in the county for six months. The ex-convict then is forced to seek medical help and medication from a hospital emergency room.[42]

Persons released from state jails are not required to participate in aftercare, despite the fact that most offenders are incarcerated on drug charges. Although links between state jails and aftercare programs exist, they are fragmented and limited to a small number of counties. Given that state jails released more than 15,000 felons in 1999, the overwhelming majority of them drug-dependent, this gap in treatment services may prove to be costly. Currently, 89.2 percent of offenders discharged from state jails are released directly to the street.[43] As a result, the state has no way to require them to participate in community treatment programs.

Recommendations

Fiscal Impact

The panel would meet at least quarterly and would require $25,000 for fiscal year 2002 for travel, printing, postage, and meeting expenses. The funding should roll over to fiscal 2003 to cover the duration of the study.

[1] Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1999: Everything Anyone Wants to Know About Adult Corrections, by Camille Graham Camp and George M. Camp (Middletown, Connecticut, 1999), p. 15; also, John Moritz, “Texas Prison Growth is Fastest: if the state were a country it would have the world’s highest incarceration rate, a study says,” Fort Worth Star Telegram, August 27, 2000.

[2] “A Two-Tiered Approach to Crime,” Austin American Statesman (September 8, 2000).

[3] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, by Tony Fabelo (Austin, Texas, November 1999), p. 62.

[4] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, p. 43.

[5] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, p. 62.

[6] Interview with Tom Baker, director of the Texas State Jail Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Austin, Texas, August 24, 2000.

[7] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Substance Abuse and Crime in Texas, by Jane Carlisle Maxwell (Austin, Texas, November 1998), p. 7.

[8] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Substance Use Among Male Inmates Entering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division: 1993, by David Farabee (Austin, Texas, 1994), pp. 42-43.

[9] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Substance Use Among Male Inmates Entering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division: 1993, p. xviii.

[10] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Texas: 1997 Update, by Liang Liu, pp. 1-3.

[11] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Substance Abuse and Treatement, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997 (Washington, D.C., January 1999), p.1.

[12] The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population, by Columbia University, by Steven Belenko, Jordon Peugh, Margaret Usdansky, Barbara Kurzweil, Harry Liu, and Susan Foster (New York, New York, January 1998),

p. iii; and US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners 1997 (Washington, DC, January 1999), p. 1.

[13] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997 (Washington, DC, January 1999), p. 3, 5.

[14] Katherine Finkelstein, “New York to Offer Most Addicts Treatment Instead of Jail Terms,” New York Times, June 23, 2000.

[15] “A Two-Tiered Approach to Crime,” Austin American Statesman.

[16] “Ambitious Plans to Cut Drug Use in Half,” Naples Daily News (August 29, 1999) (http://www.naplesnews.com/today/florida/d266816a.htm). (Internet document.)

[17] “Drug Czar Urges Treatment for Criminals,” Austin American Statesman (December 7, 1999).

[18] Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation, TRIAD Drug Treatment Evaluation Project Six Month Interim Report, by M.M. Pelissier, G. Gaes, W. Rhodes, S. Camp, J. O’Neil, S. Wallace, and W. Saylor (Washington D.C., January 1998), pp. 10-11.

[19] Steve Martin, Clifford Butzin, Christine Saum, and James A. Inciardi, “Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware,” The Prison Journal (September 1999), p. 294; and Harry K. Wexler, Gerald Melnick, Lois Lowe, and Jean Peters, “Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community and Aftercare in California,” The Prison Journal (September 1999), p. 321.

[20] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Three Year Recidivism Tracking of Offenders Participating in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, by Mike Eisenberg (Austin, Texas, 1999), p. i.

[21] James D. Griffith, Matther L. Hiller, Kevin Knight, and D. Dwayne Simpson, “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment and Risk Classification,” The Prison Journal (September 1999), p. 355.

[22] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Three Year Recidivism Tracking of Offenders Participating in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, by Tony Fabelo (Austin, Texas, 1999), p. i.

[23] David Farabee, Michael Prendergast, Jerome Cartier, Harry Wexler, Kevin Knight, and M. Douglas Anglin, “Barriers to Implementing Effective Correctional Treatment Programs,” The Prison Journal (1999), p. 150.

[24] M. Douglas Anglin, Douglas Longshore, and Susan Turner, “Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime: An Evaluation of Five Programs,” Criminal Justice and Behavior (June, 1999), pp. 168-195.

[25] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Substance Use Among Male Inmates Entering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division: 1993, by David Farabee (Austin, Texas, 1994), p. 36-37.

[26] James D. Griffith, Matther L. Hiller, Kevin Knight, and D. Dwayne Simpson, “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment and Risk Classification,” p. 352.

[27] David Farabee, Michael Prendergast, Jerome Cartier, Harry Wexler, Kevin Knight, and M. Douglas Anglin, “Barriers to Implementing Effective Correctional Treatment Programs,” The Prison Journal (1999), p. 157.

[28] Kevin Knight, D. Dwayne Simpson, and Matthew Hiller, “Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment in Texas,” p. 348.

[29] David Farabee, Michael Pendergast, Jerome Carter, Harry Wexler, Kevin Knight, and M. Douglas Anglin, “Barriers to Implementing Effective Correctional Drug Treatment Programs,” The Prison Journal (June 1999), p. 157.

[30] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Substance Abuse Education/Treatment/Alternatives Program Information (Huntsville, Texas, January 1999).

[31] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Three Year Recidivism Tracking of Offenders Participating in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, p. 12.

[32] Telephone interview with Charles Wood, director of Screening and Assessment, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Programs and Services Division, Huntsville, Texas, August 29, 2000.

[33] John Shaffer, David N. Nurco, and Timothy W. Kinlock, “A New Classification of Narcotic Addicts Based on Type and Extent of Criminal Activity,” Comprehensive Psychiatry (May/June 1984), p. 324.

[34] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Alcohol and Crime (Washington, D.C., 1998), p. 34.

[35] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, by Tony Fabelo (Austin, Texas, November 1999), p. 62.

[36] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, p. 52; also, telephone interview with Pablo Martinez, Criminal Justice Policy Council, November 17, 2000.

[37] David Farabee, Michael Pendergast, et. al, “Barriers and Implementing Effective Correctional Drug Treatment Programs,” p. 157.

[38] Phone interview with Kevin Knight, Ph.D., Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, December 4, 2000.

[39] Telephone interview with Sue Cornelius, lead training coordinator of the Programs and Services Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, Texas, August 29, 2000.

[40] Telephone interview with Mac McClinton, director auditor, M.I.S., Evaluation, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, Texas, September 13, 2000.

[41] Kevin Knight, D. Dwayne Simpson, and Matthew Hiller, “Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment in Texas,” p. 337; Steve Martin, Clifford Butzin, Christine Saum, and James A. Inciardi, “Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware,” p. 311; Harry K. Wexler, Gerald Melnick, Lois Lowe, and Jean Peters, “Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community and Aftercare in California,” p. 321.

[42] Telephone interview with Heather Clark, release coordinator, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities, Community Justice Assistance Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Austin, Texas, October 10, 2000.

[43] Criminal Justice Policy Council, The State Jail System Today, by Tony Fabelo (Austin, Texas, March, 2000), p. 18.

e-Texas is an initiative of Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Post Office Box 13528, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas

Privacy Policy