A community-based prisoner reentry program that provides substance abuse treatment to medium-to high-risk offenders placed on 24-month community correctional supervision. The program is rated No Effects. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the program had no significant effect on program participants on rearrest, reincarceration, and relapse.
This program’s rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.
The Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program is a community-based prisoner reentry program that provides substance abuse treatment to offenders who have been placed on 24-month community correctional supervision. The program targets medium- to high-risk offenders 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.
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).
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.
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.
The preponderance of evidence from the Grommon, Davidson, and Bynum (2013) study suggests that the Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program had no significant effect on program participants on all three measures (rearrest, reincarceration, and relapse).
At the 2-year follow-up analysis, 30 percent of the treatment group, versus 27 percent of the comparison group, were rearrested. Although it appeared that treatment group participants were slightly more likely than comparison group participants to be rearrested, these differences were not statistically significant.
At the 2-year follow-up analysis, 36 percent of the treatment group, versus 31 percent of the comparison group, were reincarcerated. Although this indicates that treatment group participants were slightly more likely than control group participants to return to prison, these differences were also not statistically significant.
During the course of the study, 75 percent of the treatment group relapsed, whereas 71 percent of the comparison group relapsed; however, these differences were not significant. These results indicate that a majority of both the treatment and control group relapsed (i.e., had at least one positive drug test) during the study period.
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 offenders 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 offender returning to prison for the same sentence or 2) a new offense.
There is no cost information available for this program.
Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:Study 1
Grommon, Eric, William S. Davidson II, and Timothy S. Bynum. 2013. "A Randomized Trial of a Multimodal Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Program Emphasizing Substance Abuse Treatment." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation
Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated practices that are related to this program: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:
Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision Strategies for Drug-Involved Individuals
| ||Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types|
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|