Program Profile: Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program

This is a community-based prisoner reentry program that provides substance abuse treatment to medium-to high-risk individuals placed on 24-month community correctional supervision. The program is rated No Effects. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the program had no statistically significant effect on program participants in measures of rearrest, reincarceration, and relapse.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

The Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program is a community-based prisoner reentry program that provides substance abuse treatment to people who have been placed on 24-month community correctional supervision. The program targets medium- to high-risk individuals and seeks to maximize participants’ learning and motivation, while catering to their strengths. Overall the Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program seeks to reduce the relapse, rearrest, and reincarceration rates of program participants.

Program Theory

The Multimodal Community-Based Reentry Program used the cognitive–behavioral therapeutic (CBT) framework as its foundation, believing such an approach would increase the likelihood of behavior change. The cognitive–behavior framework is grounded in the belief that substance dependency is a learned behavior and through CBT strategies this behavior can be replaced (Grommon, Davidson, and Bynum 2013).

Program Components

The program was broken into two graduating phases, which took place during the first year of release. Phase 1 took place in a secured transitional facility during the first 30–45 days following release. During this phase, the program focused on important transition components, such as housing, employment, and ensuring participants enrolled in outpatient substance abuse services and various life skills trainings. Program participants participated in 10 hours of services each week. These services were broken into one individual counseling session (1 hour long); three group sessions (4½ hours total); one family therapy session (1½ hours); and three Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous meetings (3 hours total). Randomized drug testing occurred during each day of the week. The randomization schedule ensured that 40 percent of participants were tested at least twice a week.

Following completion of Phase 1, program participants transitioned into Phase 2, which consisted of similar direct services, yet fewer hours than those offered in Phase 1. For example, Phase 2 consisted of two group sessions (3 hours total), one family group session (1½ hours), and three Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings (3 hours total) each week. Participants also had two individual counseling sessions each month. As in Phase 1, randomized drug testing occurred during Phase 2, with a schedule ensuring that at least 40 percent of participants were tested at least once a week. Failing a drug test during Phase 2 resulted in a 3-day stay in the secure residential facility.

Individualized treatment protocols were developed for each program participant. An individualized approach allowed the team to develop both treatment and prevention plans for the individual and refer him to various organizations in the community that could provide further aid. The caseworker, the therapist, and the case coordinator helped the participants identify goals and monitor progress. In addition to receiving the core curriculum, program participants also received workbooks associated with the curriculum.

Key Personnel

Program participants were managed by a primary caseworker, a treatment therapist, and a case coordinator during the program. These individuals worked together to understand the participant’s need and his substance abuse history, which was then used to develop his individualized treatment protocol. Program therapists were certified counselors, trained in CBT, with years of experience understanding behavior relapse so that such behaviors could be identified and, when possible, prevented.

Study 1

Grommon, Davidson and Bynum (2013) used an experimental design, randomly assigning eligible males to either the Multimodal Community-Based Reentry Program or the comparison condition. To be eligible, males had to be scheduled for release and placed on 24-month community correctional supervision. Further, only people with high or severe substance dependencies, and those considered medium to high risk were eligible for the study. All eligible participants were entered into a lottery for random assignment to either the treatment or control condition. Those assigned to the treatment group participated in the program for 1 year following their release and were then placed on standard parole. Participants assigned to the control group were placed on standard parole for the 2-year period. Overall, 511 males were eligible during the study period, with 263 randomly assigned to the treatment group and 248 to the control group. The mean age of participants in the treatment group was 36, the mean age of the comparison group 34. Further, the treatment group was 70 percent nonwhite, while the comparison group was 63 percent nonwhite.

To assess program impact, relapse, rearrest, and reincarceration, data were gathered from multiple sources. Rearrest data were gathered from the State Police management system, and relapse and reincarceration data were pulled from the Department of Corrections management information system. Relapse was defined as any positive drug test during the study period; rearrest was defined as an arrest for a new felony offense. Reincarceration was defined in two different ways: 1) a technical violation that resulted in the person returning to prison for the same sentence or 2) a new offense.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision Strategies for Drug-Involved Indivi duals

The practice comprises supervision strategies used by community supervision officers to address violation behavior of drug-involved individuals on probation and parole who are being supervised in the community. The goals are to generate greater compliance with supervision terms and, as a result, reduce recidivism. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime rates of drug-involved individuals supervised in the community.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?