iiiversilg u i d Veterans Ad71iiiilSt~~ili:~ii Hospalul, Pulo A 110, Califoriria (:hang% in the social climate o f two :rlcoholism treatmenl pi0 rams were evaluated by repeated asseasments with the Community-Oriend Programs Environment Scale (COPES). The programs were,similar in size and treatment, orientation, but M e r e d in physical and orgamzational setting, program length, and atient and st& characteristics. Specific and unique changes occurring witfun the treatment programs resulted in corres onding changes in relevant dimensions of the programs' social climates. Tge practical utility of COPES evaluations in instituting quality cont.ro1 and evaluating the results 1 1 f rhangp in f~:Jrnrniinit,v-~rient~ t,reatinent programs is dismased.
Focus on the systeinatic evaluatioii of the sociophysical environments of psychiatric treatment programs has recent.ly increased. Numerous studies have related ward social structure, physical settings, staff and patient attitudes, and treatment goals and orientation to patient behavior and program effectiveness (Ellsworth, > h o n e y , N e t t , Gordon, & Gunn, 1971 ; Fairweather, 1964; Stanton & Schwartz, 1954; Wing & Brown, 1970). It. is widely hypothesized that a unique and significant quality of treatment prograrns--the treatment environment-may play an important mediating role in the delivery and effectiveness of therapeutic services. This has led to severa.1 attempts t,o describe the salient components of treatment environments.
For example, Moos (1974a) has developed the Ward Atmosphere Scale (WAS) to measure the social climate of psychiatric treatment prograins. The social climate of treatment programs has a significaiit impact on the morale and self-esteem of patients and staff, and is related to objective indices of treatment outcome, such as drop-out, release, and community tenure rates. In addition, regular assessment of the program climate may be useful in providing descriptive feedback to staff and patients, as a focus for discussion and clarification of the program, in monitoring ongoing program functioning, in comparing different programs, and in facilitating program development and evaluating program change (Grant &