This paper uses a recent process evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) block grant programs to illustrate the rationale for a systems approach to corrections-based treatment. First, the paper briefly discusses the history of treatment for the criminal justice offender and the origins of the “boundaryless” organization concept. Second, it presents results from a process evaluation of several jail-based drug treatment programs. These findings are then used to highlight the central components of “boundaryless” organizations and the respective policy and operational changes (e.g., assessment and treatment) needed to focus on improved offender outcomes, especially the client's completion of the treatment program. It provides a rationale for focusing on a systems approach as a means to use treatment as a crime prevention tool.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauJ., & CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28 (3), 369–397.
2.
AnglinD. A., & HserY. I. (1990). Treatment of drug abuse. In TonryM. & WilsonJ. Q. (Eds.), Drugs and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
AskenosR.UlrichD.JickT., & KerrS. (1995). The boundaryless organizations: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
CowlesE. L.CastellanoT. C., & GranksyL. A. (1995). Boot camp drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
5.
DeLeonG. (1994). The Therapeutic Community: Toward a general theory and model. Research Monograph Series 144. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
6.
DuffeeD. E., & CarlsonB. E. (1996). Competing value premises for the provision of drug treatment to probationers. Crime and Delinquency, 42 (4), 574–592.
7.
FarabeeD.PrendergastM.CartierJ.WexlerH.KnightK., & AnglinM. D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs. Prison Journal, 79 (2), 150–163.
8.
HammerS. (1996). Beyond reengineering: The process-centered organization is changing our work and our livings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
HubbardR. L.MarsdenM. E.RachalJ. V.HarwoodH. J.CavanaughE. R. & GinzburgH. M. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: A national study of effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
10.
LanganP. (1994). Between prison and probation: intermediate sanctions and probation. Science, 264, 791–93.
11.
LatessaE. J., & HolsingerA. M. (1999). Evaluation of Ohio Department of Youth Services community correctional facilities (CCF's). Division of Criminal Justice, Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
12.
MacKenzieD. (1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD.MacKenizeD.EckJ.ReuterP., & BushwayS.Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
13.
MooreS. T. (1992). Case management and the integration of services: How service delivery systems shape case management. Social Work, 37, 418–423.
14.
PalmerT. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime and Delinquency, 41 (1), 100–131.
15.
PetersiliaJ. (1997). Probation in the United States. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research. Vol. 22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
PetersiliaJ. (1999). A decade with experimenting with intermediate sanctions: what have we learned?Perspectives, 23 (1), 39–44.
17.
ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD.MacKenzieD. L.EckJ.ReuterP., & BushwayS. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
18.
SimpsonD. D.JoeG. W.DansereauD. F., & ChathamL. R. (1997). Strategies for improving methadone treatment process and outcomes. Journal of Drug Issues, 27 (2), 239–260.
19.
SimpsonD. D.JoeG. W.FletcherB. W.HubbardR. L., & AnglinM. D. (1999). A national evaluation of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 507–514.
20.
SimpsonD. D.WexlerH. K., & InciardiJ. A. (1999). Introduction. The Prison Journal, 79 (4), 381–383.
21.
TaxmanF. S. (1998). Recidivism reduction through a seamless system of care: Components of effective treatment, supervision and transition services in the community. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
22.
TaxmanF. S. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, Winter (2): 59–74.
23.
TaxmanF. S., & BouffardJ. A. (2000). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified-therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24.
TaxmanF. S., & CroninJ. (2000). W/B HIDTA: Evaluation results. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland: College Park.
25.
TaxmanF. S., & LockwoodD. (1996). Systemic case management practices: The W/B HIDTA seamless system approach. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
26.
TaxmanF. S.SouleD., & GelbA. (1999). Graduated sanctions: stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal, 79 (2), 182–205.
27.
TaxmanF. S., & SpinnerD. L. (1996). The jail addictions services (JAS) project in Montgomery County, Maryland: overview of results from a 24 month follow-up study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
28.
WexlerH. K.FalkinG. P., & LiptonD. S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abusers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17 (1), 71–92.
