Building an Effective Research Partnership Between a University and a State Correctional Agency: Assessment of Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania Prisons

• Author: Wayne N. Welsh,Gary Zajac
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885504265075
• Date: 01 June 2004
• Published date: 01 June 2004
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0032885504265075THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 2004Welsh, Zajac / EFFECTIVE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP

BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE RESEARCH

PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN A UNIVERSITY

AND A STATE CORRECTIONAL AGENCY:

ASSESSMENT OF DRUG TREATMENT

IN PENNSYLVANIA PRISONS

WAYNE N. WELSH

Temple University

GARY ZAJAC

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

The purpose of this project was to develop a collaborative research partnership

between TempleUniversity’s Center for Public Policy and the Pennsylvania Depart-

ment of Corrections (DOC), with a demonstration research project that included

three main elements: (a) a descriptive assessment of drug and alcohol programming

(through program surveys and a 1-day symposium with treatment staff members),

including the identification of critical service delivery components and goals; (b) an

intensive on-site process evaluation of representative programs at two institutions;

and (c) the preparation of an outcome evaluation research design on the basis of

analyses and discussion between Templeand the DOC. This article summarizes criti-

cal stages in the development of the partnership; reactionsfrom Steering Committee

members and drug treatment staff members; resultsfrom a survey of 118 drug treat-

ment programs at 24 state prisons; major findings from process evaluation; and

implications for drug treatment programming, policy, and evaluation.

Keywords: adult offenders; corrections; drug use; drug treatment;

rehabilitation

The purpose of our project was to develop a collaborative research part-

nership between Temple University’s Center for Public Policy and the Penn-

sylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), with a demonstration project

The research reported here was supported by Grant 98-CE-VX-0016 from the U.S. Depart-

mentof Justice, National Institute of Justice. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors

and not necessarily of the U.S. Department of Justice. Anyerrors or omissions, of course, are the

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 84 No. 2, June 2004 143-170

DOI: 10.1177/0032885504265075

© 2004 Sage Publications

143

that included three main elements: (a) a descriptive assessment of alcoholor

other drug (AOD) programming (through surveys and a symposium with

treatment staff members), including the identification of critical service

delivery components and goals; (b) an intensiveon-site process evaluation of

representative programs at two institutions; and (c) the design of an outcome

evaluation research design on the basis of analyses and discussion between

Temple and the DOC. We emphasized an interactive approach that involves

key stakeholders in the identification of all needs, goals, and research activi-

ties. Our purpose was to facilitate a general program planning and develop-

ment agenda including but not restricted to outcome evaluation. Weempha-

sized a research agenda driven by the DOC’s needs, with a long-term goal of

developing an internal research capacity.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

As in other states, correctional issues in Pennsylvania command greater

budget and policy attention than ever before (Welsh,1993, 1995). Like other

states, Pennsylvania lacks the necessary resources to evaluate the wide range

of treatment programs offered to thousands of inmates within its institutions.

There is an increasing need for evaluative research to determine which pro-

grams work for which offenders under which conditions, to improve pro-

gramming to reduce recidivism and increase public safety, and to demon-

strate accountability to state and federal funding sources. A large numberof

drug-involvedoffenders are treated annually, but research is sorely needed to

examine effective elements of service delivery and treatment outcomes.

Nearly 2 million inmates were incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons by the

end of 2000, a rate of 699 per 100,000 adults (up from 458 in 1990) (Beck &

Harrison, 2001). Although estimates of AOD dependence among inmate

populations vary widely depending on the type of assessment procedure

used, most professionals accept estimates based on the Diagnostic and Sta-

tistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV) Structured Clinical

Interview as among the most reliable (Peters, Greenbaum, & Edens, 1998).

Administering this instrument to a sample of 400 stateprison inmates, Peters

et al. (1998) estimated lifetime prevalence rates of substance abuse or

dependence disorders among 74% of the inmate population. Over half were

diagnosed as exhibiting substance abuse or dependence disorders for the 30

days prior to their current incarceration.

144 THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 2004

responsibility of the authors alone. Wewish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of gradu-

ate research associates Kelley Klick, Joseph Michaels, Patrick McGrain, and Judith Rushall. We

also express gratitude to all Department of Corrections personnel on our Steering Committee.