Using a quasi-experimental study design to match therapeutic community participants to a comparison group of individuals who met eligibility criteria, this study, funded by U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, is a continuation of and builds upon a prior study focusing on the implementation of the therapeutic community. The study examined effectiveness in treating and rehabilitating participants, in successfully integrating recovering inmates into their communities, in reducing post-release substance use, and in increasing social stability. The Genesis program uses social learning theory as its theoretical approach which views the social environment as the most important source of reinforcement. A modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) was used to measure outcomes and changes in both the treatment and the comparison group. Interviews were conducted with study members at intake into the therapeutic community and enrollment in the comparison group, at discharge from the therapeutic community, and for the comparison group at approximately 9 months after enrollment, and at follow-up 9-12 months after the date of the discharge interview. Sixty-seven therapeutic community group individuals and 57 comparison group individuals were enrolled in the study. Therapeutic community members were not more socially stable than comparison group members when the ASI medical, family, and psychiatric domains were compared. Both groups experienced significant problems with employment. The groups were similar regarding their drug use and there were no measurable statistical differences within the RSAT and comparison group from the intake interview to the follow-up interview. On average, neither group reported large drug problems as measured by the drug domains composite scores. There were significant declines for both in alcohol problems with the RSAT group experiencing a larger decline. Findings for this study were significantly limited due to the inability of the program to be implemented according to its design and Federal guidelines and the inability of research staff to track and locate study participants for discharge and follow-up interviews. References and appendices