Table 3.

Results of fixed effects for hierarchical linear models (random intercepts and slopes) for use of evidence-based practices.

Variable	Coefficient	SE	t
Goals of corrections (Level 1 n = 73; Level 2 n = 257)
Rehabilitation (Facility)	0.30	0.19	1.60
Rehabilitation (State)	0.13	0.40	0.31
Deterrence (State)	0.13	0.18	0.68
Importance of corrections-based SA Tx (State)	<0.01	0.10	0.07
Importance of community-based SA Tx (State)	0.01	0.17	0.11
Punishment (Facility)	−0.41	0.09	−4.50***
Rehabilitation (State)	0.26	0.20	1.31
Deterrence (State)	0.19	0.11	1.76
Importance of corrections-based SA Tx (State)	−0.13	0.06	−2.20*
Importance of community-based SA Tx (State)	<−0.01	0.07	−0.07
Importance of corrections-based substance abuse treatment (Facility)a	0.05	0.06	0.87
Rehabilitation (State)	−0.01	0.13	−0.04
Deterrence (State)	−0.05	0.04	−1.26
Importance of corrections-based SA Tx (State)	−0.02	0.02	−0.66
Importance of community-based SA Tx (State)	0.02	0.11	0.16
Importance of community-based substance abuse treatment (Facility)	0.01	0.08	0.12
Rehabilitation (State)	0.14	0.08	1.63
Deterrence (State)	0.02	0.04	0.61
Importance of corrections-based SA Tx (State)	0.03	0.03	0.94
Importance of community-based SA Tx (State)	−0.02	0.19	−0.16
Organizational culture and climate (Level 1 n = 62; Level 2 n = 225)b
Management emphasis on quality treatment (Facility)	0.49	0.19	2.64**
Management Emphasis on quality treatment (State)	0.62	0.34	1.81
Cohesion (State)	0.08	0.40	0.21
Hierarchy (State)	−0.50	0.34	−1.46
Performance/Achievement (State)	0.10	0.30	0.35
Innovation (State)	0.03	0.41	0.08
Performance/Achievement (Facility)	0.14	0.13	1.13
Management Emphasis on quality treatment (State)	−0.42	0.35	−1.22
Cohesion (State)	0.29	0.29	1.01
Hierarchy (State)	0.18	0.27	0.66
Performance/Achievement (State)	−0.12	0.25	−0.49
Innovation (State)	0.05	0.31	0.15
Innovation/Adaptability (Facility)	−0.02	0.08	−0.18
Management Emphasis on quality treatment (State)	−0.35	0.47	−0.75
Cohesion (State)	0.28	0.34	0.81
Hierarchy (State)	1.14	0.31	3.70***
Performance/Achievement (State)	−0.26	0.26	−1.00
Innovation (State)	−0.18	0.20	−0.89
Resources (Level 1 n = 91; Level 2 n = 412)
Training (Facility)a	0.22	0.08	2.92**
Training (State)	−0.04	0.12	−0.31
Funding (State)	−0.14	0.15	−0.92
Physical plant (State)	0.13	0.23	0.58
Resources (State)	−0.33	0.25	−1.28
Staffing (State)	0.27	0.14	1.97*
Funding (Facility)	−0.05	0.07	−0.74
Training (State)	−0.01	0.10	−0.14
Funding (State)	−0.12	0.08	−1.55
Physical plant (State)	0.06	0.24	0.27
Resources (State)	−0.02	0.25	−0.10
Staffing (State)	0.27	0.12	2.20*
Physical plant (Facility)	−0.24	0.18	−1.34
Training (State)	0.30	0.24	1.28
Funding (State)	−0.26	0.29	−0.89
Physical plant (State)	−0.39	0.78	−0.51
Resources (State)	0.18	0.75	0.25
Staffing (State)	0.55	0.29	1.90
Resources (Facility)	0.17	0.21	0.80
Training (State)	−0.25	0.28	−0.90
Funding (State)	0.38	0.31	1.22
Physical plant (State)	0.20	0.76	0.26
Resources (State)	0.05	0.74	0.07
Staffing (State)	−0.75	0.34	−2.16*
Staffing (Facility)a	−0.09	0.06	−1.44
Training (State)	0.10	0.09	1.04
Funding (State)	0.04	0.10	0.37
Physical plant (State)	−0.26	0.29	−0.89
Resources (State)	0.25	0.29	0.89
Staffing (State)	0.01	0.12	0.13
Internal support (Facility)	0.35	0.07	4.66***
Training (State)	<−0.01	0.11	−0.04
Funding (State)	−0.19	0.13	−1.42
Physical plant (State)	0.78	0.23	3.40***
Resources (State)	−0.54	0.26	−2.08*
Staffing (State)	<0.01	0.16	<0.01

Note. SE: Standard error, SA Tx: Substance Abuse Treatment. All models control for whether the respondent oversees adult or juvenile corrections organizations. Random effects were estimated in separate regression models for each domain: Missions and Goals, Culture and Climate, Resources.

^aVariance component fixed to zero due to its small magnitude when examined as a random effect.

^bThe number of respondents is lower for the Culture and Climate domain because the treatment directors did not complete these measures.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.