The Intensive Drug Program represents an important innovation in developing sentencing options for offenders with substance abuse problems. By combining mandatory treatment for substance abuse with electronically monitored house arrest the program attempts to reduce criminal behavior and drug use. Statistical analysis of recidivism data and drug test results suggests the program is working. Community-based sentencing options that combine drug treatment with electronic monitoring therefore warrant further consideration as intermediate sentencing options for substance abusers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A.
, Ivan Zinger, Robert D. Hodge, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau, and Francis T. Cullen. 1990. “Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis.”Criminology28:369-404.
2.
Anglin, Douglas M.
and Yih-Ing Hser. 1990. “Treatment of Drug Abuse.” Pp. 393-461 in Drugs and Crime, edited by M. Tonry and J. Q. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Baumer, Terry L.
and Robert I. Mendelsohn. Forthcoming. “Electronically Monitored Home Confinement: Does it Work?” in Smart Sentencing? An Examination of the Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. M. Byrne and A. Lurigio. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Beck, James L.
and Jody Klein-Saffran. 1989. Community Control Project. United States Parole Commission, Report 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
Chaiken, Jan M.
and Marcia R. Chaiken. 1990. “Drugs and Predatory Crime.” Pp. 203-239 in Drugs and Crime, edited by M. Tonry and J. Q. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Clackamas County Community Corrections Division
. 1990. Biennial Plan for 1991-1993. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County Community Corrections Division.
7.
Doble, John
. 1987. Crime and Punishment: The Public's View. New York: Public Agenda Foundation.
8.
Fyfe, James J.1991. “Some Hard Facts About Our Wars on Crime.”Washington Post National Weekly Edition24, April 8-14.
9.
Hofer, Paul J.
and Barbara S. Meierhoefer. 1987. Home Confinement: An Evolving Sanction in the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
10.
Hosmer, David W.
and Stanley Lemeshow. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.
11.
Hubbard, Robert L.
, Mary E. Marsden, Elizabeth Cavanaugh, J. Valley Rachal, and Harold M. Ginzburg. 1988. “Role of Drug-Abuse Treatment in Limiting the Spread of AIDS.”Reviews of Infectious Disease10:377-384.
12.
Inciardi, James A.
1986. The War on Drugs: Heroin, Cocaine, Crime, and Public Policy. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
13.
Jolin, Annette
and Brian Stipak. 1991. Clackamas County Community Corrections Intensive Drug Program: Program Evaluation Report. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County Community Corrections Division.
14.
LaFraniere, Sharon
. 1991. “Running Hard but Losing Ground.”Washington Post National Weekly Edition31 May6-12.
15.
Morris, Norval
and Michael Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
17.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1988. House Arrest. Crime File, NCJ 1045559. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
18.
Petersilia, Joan
and Susan Turner. 1990. Intensive Supervision for High Risk Probationers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
19.
Rogers, Robert
and Annette Jolin. 1989. “Electronic Monitoring: A Review of the Empirical Literature.”Contemporary Criminal Justice5(3):141-152.
20.
Sutherland, Edwin H.
and Donald R. Cressey. 1978. Criminology, 10th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott.
21.
Tonry, Michael
. 1990. “Research on Drugs and Crime.” Pp. 1-8 in Drugs and Crime, edited by M. Tonry and J. Q. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Wilson, James Q.
1990. “Drugs and Crime.” Pp. 521-545 in Drugs and Crime, edited by M. Tonry and J. Q. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
