Executive Summary: Evaluation of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Treatment Component

• NCJ Number: 221948
• Author(s): Jennifer J. Zajac; Jessica DeGel; Larry Fish Ph.D.
• Date Published: September 2007
• Length: 8 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2002/2003/2004-DS/DS/DS-19/19/19-13564
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Corporate Author: University of Pittsburgh
• Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded on March 17, 2008. For project highlights see NCJ-221947 and for the full report see NCJ-221949.

Annotation

This report presents a summary of an evaluative study of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Residential Treatment Curriculum (PTSD RTC) for female juvenile offenders.

Abstract

The review of the program curriculum indicated that the PTSD RTC is a well-developed guide for treating PTSD in female offenders that includes many practices that are supported by research. However, it is recommended that project leaders obtain an accurate understanding of the classification status of females in placement to ensure that females participate fully in the treatment. It is also recommended that in order for PTSD RTC to succeed, it is necessary to support facilities so they can carry out treatment as intended and participate in evaluation activities. The PTSD Project began in 1999 when the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) awarded a grant to Alternative Rehabilitation Communities, Inc., to develop and implement a curriculum, the PTSD RTC, to treat PTSD in female juvenile offenders. In 2003, an evaluation of the PTSD RTC was conducted. The overall purpose of the evaluation was to assess the implementation of the PTSD RTC at treatment facilities with female juvenile offenders and to evaluate the effect of the intervention on participants. The evaluation was designed to examine both process and outcome issues. The study consisted of 41 females from the treatment sites and 55 females from comparison sites. This report presents a summary of findings from the evaluative study.