U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director July 1995

continued . . .

“Boot Camp” Drug Treatment

and Aftercare Interventions:

An Evaluation Review

by Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D., and Laura A. Gransky, M.S.

Because of the rapid expansion of correctional boot camps, limited evaluative

research has been produced to inform

sound policy and program development.

To date, correctional officials in the process of designing or modifying boot

camp programming have not had access

to information that identifies key components of effective programs, particularly

substance abuse programming. Some

boot camps have been designed to make

positive impacts on substance-abusing

offenders, and even those not developed

with this purpose in mind have often included substance abuse as an integral

part of their programmatic thrust. Yet,

little is known about these efforts.

To fill these information gaps and address three issues germane to substance

abuse treatment and aftercare programs

for offenders in boot camp prisons, the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded

a research study that entailed:

● Review of drug treatment interventions

in both the inprogram and aftercare

phases of the contemporary boot camp

experience.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief:

An NIJ-sponsored assessment of

adult boot camp programming,

particularly those components

dealing with substance abuse

treatment and aftercare, based

on empirical data from survey

responses, site visits, and interviews.

Key Issues: There are few descriptive or evaluative studies on

the nature of boot camp substance abuse programs, their impact on offenders, or the

effectiveness of specific treatment strategies. However, the

limited information available suggests that extant programming

available in correctional boot

camps is not likely to result in reduced recidivism or drug dependence among “graduates” who

have been returned to the community. This brief examines the

integrity of substance abuse

treatment programs in correctional boot camps and whether

such programming adheres to

the general principles of effective

drug treatment.

Key findings: The State and

Federal officials, administrators,

and program staff who participated in this study generally

agreed on the importance of offender rehabilitation as an organizational goal, but for reasons of

politics, structure, or statutory

constraint, the study found that

the substance abuse education/

treatment programs actually

implemented in boot camp

● Assessment of the validity of these programs in light of what is known about drug

treatment efficacy.

● Identification of treatment components

that are best-suited to boot camp environments and participants, and that are most

likely to reduce recidivism in program participants.

This Research in Brief offers an overview

of the study’s methodology, findings, and

implications. It focuses on possible approaches to improving the effectiveness of

adult boot camps, particularly substance

abuse programming and aftercare

components.

Study methodology

The Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and Corrections (Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale) collected data in

1992 and the first 6 months of 1993; the

study results reflect the adult boot camp

substance abuse programming that was offered during this time period.

Programs selected for study. Some debate

exists concerning the definition of a correctional “boot camp” and whether the
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

2

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

facilities are not likely to result in

the rehabilitation of boot camp

participants. Specific findings suggest that a maximally effective

boot camp treatment regime

would:

● Include substance abuse education and treatment programs involving psychotherapeutic-based

interventions, such as individual

and small group therapies, with a

focus on multimodal approaches

that are relevant to the offender

population.

● Arise from comprehensive planning processes that are sensitive to

the unique environment and offender population of the facility

and include input from substance

abuse treatment professionals.

● Use standardized assessment

processes to place inmates in individualized treatment programs.

● Employ or contract with welltrained, qualified substance abuse

treatment providers to run facility

programs and ensure that the ratio

of inmates assigned to each of

these professionals is sufficiently

low to permit individualized

approaches.

● Adopt the therapeutic community model, involving frequent

staff/inmate interaction, the use of

peer pressure to reinforce positive

behavior and eliminate negative

behavior, and a de-emphasis on

the punitive aspects of boot camp

experience.

● Include prerelease and postrelease programming to ensure a

continuity of care throughout the

institutional and aftercare phases

of the program.

Target audience: Policymakers,

practitioners, and researchers.

term is an appropriate descriptor of the

various types of programs and facilities

that have emerged in recent years. Many

jurisdictions do not use this term, even

though their programs resemble boot

camps found elsewhere and contain

strong elements of a military model. Because of this debate, the term “shock incarceration” (SI) is used interchangeably

with the term “boot camp” throughout

this document.

SI programs were selected for this study

according to the following criteria:

● The sponsoring correctional agency

had to consider the program a shock

incarceration program.

● The program had to include an intensive training component, not necessarily

based on a military model.

● The program had to be considered an

incarceration-based alternative to a traditional prison sentence.

Design approach. A multiphase approach was designed to identify the adult

boot camp facilities that might provide

substance abuse programming and to assess a wide range of such program offerings. In the first phase, jurisdictions

operating shock incarceration programs

were identified through the literature, by

other researchers conducting SI research, and with the assistance of two

Federal Government agencies: the National Institute of Corrections and NIJ.

In addition, directors or commissioners

of the Department of Corrections in all

50 States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the

District of Columbia, and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons were contacted to determine whether correctional programming in their systems included a shock

incarceration facility. These efforts identified 45 SI facilities operating at the

Federal/State level and 10 operating at

the county level.

In the second phase, researchers described and evaluated the drug treatment

programming and aftercare services provided by the identified facilities and assessed the contexts in which services

were provided. The research team sought

to develop a framework to assess the validity and efficacy of substance abuse

treatment programs. This framework was

created using a multilevel survey in four

distinct stages:

● Telephone interviews with the person

at the system level (e.g., Department of

Correction’s central office) responsible

for implementing shock incarceration

programming.

● Mailed questionnaires directed to the

facility administrator at each identified

shock incarceration site.

● Mailed questionnaires directed to the

staff member responsible for delivery of

the facility’s substance abuse treatment/

education program (if applicable).

● Questionnaires forwarded to those

identified by shock incarceration facilities in the previous surveys as providers

of substance abuse aftercare programming to SI graduates.

The purpose of this multilevel approach

was to assess the continuum of substance abuse treatment within the

Nation’s various shock incarceration

programs and to gather the differing perspectives of those involved with substance abuse programming at the system,

facility, and program delivery levels.

To evaluate the effectiveness of SI substance abuse treatment and education

programs, analysis of the survey data focused on two issues:
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

3

● Treatment issue: Does the drug

treatment paradigm competently deal

with the offender’s drug problem?

● Program/policy issue: Does drug

treatment fit within the context of the

larger boot camp/aftercare effort?

Another aspect of the design to evaluate the validity and efficacy of substance abuse programming involved

site visits to three facilities that were

thought to have unique, extensive, or

particularly innovative substance

abuse treatment programs. These three

programs were the Challenge Incarceration Program at Willow River in

Minnesota, the Massachusetts Boot

Camp at the Bridgewater Correctional

Complex, and the Lakeview Shock Incarceration Program in New York.

During site visits, the research team

collected information, observed the

boot camps, interviewed key staff

members, administered a survey to

available inmates, and held discussions with these inmates to elicit additional perceptions of the boot camp

experience.

Response rates. Since survey responses from county-operated (e.g.,

jail) boot camps were quite low, the

findings do not include information

from the local level. In general, however, the study findings apply to boot

camps at the Federal and State level,

as response rates of these boot camps

were 69 percent for the administrative

survey and 64 percent for the substance abuse treatment/education survey (see exhibit 1). Respondents were

also provided with written program

summaries developed from information

gathered in the surveys and asked to

both verify and update them. As a result, the program information presented in this document accurately

captures the dimensions of these SI

programs as they existed in 1992.

Nonresponses for the administrative

and substance abuse surveys resulted

primarily from response patterns in

three States. New York State, with five

facilities at the time of the survey, declined to participate in the facilitybased survey component. Only three of

Georgia’s six facilities responded to

both surveys, and only one administrative questionnaire was returned from

among Oklahoma’s four programs.

Thus, these States represented most of

the nonresponses. Fortunately, because these programs were well documented and one of New York State’s

facilities served as a case study site,

sufficient information on all State- and

Federal-level adult boot camps is reflected in the findings.

Excluded from this national assessment are juvenile programs, which are

the subject of evaluations funded

separately by NIJ. Results of these

evaluations are not yet available, but it

appears that many innovative features

are being incorporated into juvenile

boot camp programs, and the lessons

they generate may be quite applicable

to adult boot camps.

Study findings

Research literature. An extensive review of existing research literature revealed little detailed descriptive or

evaluative research on substance

Exhibit 1: Survey Response Rates

Administrative Surveys

Levela No. of Facilities No. of Responses Return Rate (%)

Federal 2 2 100

State 43 29 67

Total 45 31 69

Substance Abuse Treatment/Education Surveys

a

Three county-level administrative surveys were also returned. They represented only 30 percent of that population and were excluded from all analyses.

a

Three county-level substance abuse treatment/education surveys were also returned. They represented only 30 percent of that population and were excluded

from all analyses.

Levela No. of Facilities No. of Responses Return Rate (%)

Federal 2 2 100

State 43 27 63

Total 45 29 64
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

4

abuse programming in shock incarceration environments or on participants’ subsequent reintegration into

the community. The only studies that

examined the impact of boot camps on

substance abusers were evaluations of

a program in Louisiana, which indicated that the boot camp experience itself did not have any differential or

positive impact on the community adjustments of drug-involved offenders.1

Rehabilitation. Although shock

incarceration’s acceptance by the public is based mostly on the visceral appeal generated by “tough” media

images of drill instructors, most adult

boot camps surveyed were positively

oriented toward developing programs

aimed at offender rehabilitation (see

exhibit 2). Survey results further indicated a strong level of agreement on

rehabilitation goals for boot camps

among system-level officials, facility

administrators, and officials in charge

of delivering substance abuse treatment and education.

However, responses to questions about

the priority of reducing offender drug

use varied according to the respondent’s role in the boot camp. Facilitybased staff emphasized this goal more

than system-level administrators.

Nonetheless, most surveyed correctional officials indicated that reducing

offender drug use was a goal of their

shock incarceration facility. At some

facilities, the implementation of substance abuse programs was incongruent with stated aims, but the study

findings suggest the existence of a

strong potential for implementation of

bona fide substance abuse programs

(and an array of complementary services) that could achieve some positive

basic changes in offender attitudes

and behavior.

Treatment services. A review of shock

incarceration program documents and

this study’s survey results revealed

great variability in the nature of substance abuse and aftercare programming provided in SI facilities. All

system-level respondents indicated

that alcohol and drug treatment services were being provided in their

shock incarceration facilities. However, 25 percent of site-level administrators and site-level substance abuse

treatment/education providers indicated that alcohol or drug treatment

was not provided in their facilities (see

exhibit 3). Thus, confusion apparently

existed as to whether a drug treatment

program actually was in place at certain facilities.

One explanation for this disparity may

reflect the disagreement in the drug

treatment literature on whether it is

appropriate to consider drug education

programming as a drug treatment.

Many have argued that substance

abuse education/information programs

do not constitute treatment, and may,

at best, provide basic support for treatment.2

 Prior surveys indicating the almost uniform presence of drug

treatment programming in boot camps

may have overrepresented the situation because reported findings often

were derived from responses of system-level officials, who perhaps considered drug education programming

as a drug treatment modality. In this

study, those individuals closest to the

delivery of such programming indicated that 25 percent of adult boot

camps provided substance abuse education, exclusive of treatment.

Survey findings also highlighted the

eclectic nature of substance abuse

treatment offered in shock incarceration programs. The majority of programs used multiple treatment approaches (i.e., some combination of

education, group counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step approaches,

and individual counseling), as shown

in exhibit 4; within these approaches,

multiple treatment interventions were

employed.

Education. Education was prominently

featured in substance abuse programming in boot camp facilities, whether

as the sole program component or as

part of a broader treatment paradigm.

In effect, all shock facilities provided

drug education in some form.

The presence of substance abuse treatment programming, by itself or in combination with education programming, was

directly related to the stated goals of rehabilitative programming found in boot

camps. The presence of substance abuse

treatment may be a defining characteristic of boot camps that most forcefully assert and seek the goal of offender

rehabilitation. When treatment and education programs are merged, the dilution

of the former may result (at least in the

opinion of substance abuse programming

providers). For example, those facilities

that offered programs in both substance

abuse education and treatment provided,

on average, nearly 30 more hours of education instruction (70 hours versus 42

hours) than facilities that offered an education program only.

Treatment interventions. Examination of the most and least often used

treatment interventions offered at

shock incarceration facilities suggests

that most programs were oriented toward pragmatic skill-building as a

means of helping offenders cope with

problems and stressors they would

face on returning to society. These approaches were identified by one re-
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

5

Exhibit 2: The Importance of Shock Incarceration Aims, Goals, and Program Elementsa as Reported by

System Level Officials (n=31)

 Importance

1 4 Not Mean S.D.

Primary 2 3 Least Applicable

CORRECTIONAL AIMS:

Retribution 0 6.5 25.8 58.1 9.7 3.57 .63

Incapacitation 12.9 9.7 45.2 25.8 6.5 2.90 .98

Rehabilitation 51.6 35.5 6.5 0 6.5 1.52 .63

Deterrence 32.3 41.9 16.1 6.5 3.2 1.97 .89

GOALSb Mean S.D. ELEMENTSc Mean S.D.

SYSTEM LEVEL: 2.78

Reduce Crowding 2.87 1.71 Physical Training 1.55 .93

Improve Image of Corrections 3.58 1.48 Alcohol Treatment 2.42 1.15

Public Safety 1.58 1.03 Drug Treatment 2.39 1.20

Alternative to Longer-Term Incarceration 1.55 1.03 Substance Abuse Education 2.03 .98

Less Cost 2.32 1.28 Physical Labor 2.10 1.48

Politically Acceptable Alternative 2.42 0.92 Drill/Ceremony 1.74 1.03

Model for County Programs 5.16 2.24 Basic Education 2.53 1.31

Vocational Education 3.36 1.45

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: 1.87 Pre-Release Programming 2.79 1.40

Instill Respect for Authority 1.71 1.10 Post-Release Service Delivery 2.13 1.19

Promoting Discipline 1.55 0.89

Less Criminal Activity 1.77 0.76

Improve Confidence 1.94 1.18

Reduce Drug Use 2.39 1.23

Positive Social Behaviors 1.84 1.00

PRISON CONTROL/MANAGEMENT: 2.02

Clean, Healthy Environment 2.19 1.01

Offender Accountability 1.84 1.24

Positive Offender/Staff Contact 2.16 1.07

Environment Promoting Rehabilitation 1.90 0.91

a

Elements identified by respondents as not being a program element were excluded from calculations of mean scores.

bMeans of goals are based on a scale of 1 (very important) to 7 (not important at all).

c

Means of elements are based on a scale of 1 (primary program element) to 6 (minor program element).

 Caution is urged in interpreting mean scores due to the use of rating scales.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

6

searcher as “psychoeducational,” and

they focused on the following:3

● Development of motivation and commitment (to overcome dependence).

● Development of life skills (e.g., fiscal management, communication

skills, constructive use of time).

● AIDS education and prevention.

● Relapse prevention strategies.

● Development of an aftercare plan to

access community resources after release.

Traditional psychotherapeutic approaches, designed to uncover and

deal with the offenders’ underlying

psychological and emotional problems,

were used infrequently. Detoxification,

pharmacological interventions, individual therapy, and family counseling

were rarely used at shock incarceration facilities. The absence of programs addressing the unique psychosocial characteristics of the offender,

either through individual or small

group therapies, raised questions

about the effectiveness of SI treatment

programming.

Design and implementation. Many

jurisdictions have implemented shock

incarceration programs in response to

political demands, and input from

treatment professionals has been minimal. Frequently, substance abuse programming appeared to have been

introduced into the shock incarceration facility as an afterthought, once

the major program design features

were already in place. In some instances, this late introduction may

have weakened the potential effectiveness of substance abuse programs because features of the original design

were inconsistent with the goal of reduced drug use. For example, at many

facilities substance abuse programming is confined to “off hours”—during the evening and on the weekend.

Moreover, most boot camp programs

are of relatively brief duration (i.e., 3

to 6 months), which is inconsistent

with what is known about the length of

effective drug treatment programs. Together, these aspects of drug treatment

programming in boot camps may undermine the purpose and efficacy of

the programs.

One exception to this pattern was found

in New York State, where equal emphasis on treatment and discipline was

planned from the beginning. Many

States have adopted the New York

model, with minor modifications. However, what has worked in New York may

not be appropriate in other legal strucExhibit 3: The Percentagea of Facilities in Which Various Elements Exist as Reported by Systems-Level

Officials, Site-Level Administrators, and Site-Level Substance Treatment Providersb

Site-Level Substance

Site-Level Abuse Treatment/

System-Level Officials Administrators Education Providers

(n=27) (n=28) (n=28)

ELEMENTS % % %

Physical Training 100 96 96

Alcohol Treatment 100 75 75

Drug Treatment 100 75 75

Substance Abuse Education 100 100 100

Physical Labor 100 96 96

Drill/Ceremony 100 100 100

Basic Education 96 93 100

Vocational Education 46 32 43

Pre-Release Programming 93 96 96

Post-Release Services Delivery 74 75 71

a

Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole percent.

bIn this table, percentages are presented only for those jurisdictions with system-level respondents (27 of 31), administrative survey

respondents (28 of 32), and substance abuse survey respondents (28 of 29).
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

7

tures and program environments.

Wholesale duplication of programs,

without adequate allowance for facilityspecific needs that require modifications and/or tailoring, has been an

undesirable feature of the boot camp

movement. Perhaps the greatest problem resulting from the decision to replicate an existing program has been the

failure to solicit the views of substance

abuse treatment professionals on initial

designs and aftercare components.

Assessment and case management

systems. Nearly 70 percent of the

shock incarceration facilities indicated

they assessed offenders’ substance

abuse problems. For those offering

substance abuse treatment, this percentage increased to approximately 81

percent. The majority of facilities reported the use of multiple assessment

techniques. The most common approaches used were interviews, case

materials review, and psychological or

behavioral testing instruments.

Despite these efforts, the predominant

mechanism for placement of shock incarceration offenders in substance abuse

treatment was a legally mandated or

nonclinical decision process, not a diagnostic assessment or clinically based decision of need, treatment amenability, or

potential effectiveness. Instead, substance abuse programming was usually

driven by general structural and administrative concerns relating to shock incarceration facilities; treatment was

generally mandated for all offenders by

statute or policy, and most often all offenders received the same treatment interventions. This finding is particularly

troublesome because the only study to

examine the effect of the boot camp experience on substance abusers indicated

that mandated treatment interventions in

the community, based on legal instead of

clinical factors, were not associated with

reduced levels of offender recidivism.4

Moreover, the case study of the Minnesota program presented in this research

effort indicated that forcing people to receive treatment who did not believe they

Exhibit 4: Most Frequently Used Treatment Interventions for Five Primary Treatment Modalities in Shock

Incarceration Facilitiesa

Modality Number of Treatment Number of

Facilities Facilities

Using (%) Using (%)

Group Counseling 19 (86) AA 12-Step 18 (95)

Reality Therapy 16 (84)

Stress Management 15 (79)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Model (Self-help: 17 (77) AA 12-Step 17 (100)

AA/NA/CA) Reality Therapy 16 (94)

Stress Management 13 (76)

Individual Counseling 14 (64) AA 12-Step 13 (93)

Reality Therapy 12 (86)

Reentry 11 (79)

Stress Management 11 (79)

Milieu Therapy 11 (50) AA 12-Step 11 (100)

Reality Therapy 10 (91)

Stress Management 10 (91)

Confrontation 9 (82)

Therapeutic Community 2 (9) AA 12-Step 2 (100)

Positive Peer Culture 2 (100)

a

Responses of 22 facilities indicating that they provide substance abuse treatment.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

8

Exhibit 5: Substance Abuse Treatment Staff at Facilities Providing Treatment (n=22)

Exhibit 6: Decision Authority* for Aftercare Placement

In Statute Judicial

Placement

DOC Obj.

Decision DOC Subj.

Decision

Parole Sub.

Decision Parole Obj.

Decision Voluntary Other

Mechanism

Yes

No

4

17

11

10

3

16

9

12

8

13

6

15

5

16

3

16

Number of Jurisdictions (n=21)

20

15

10

5

0

Placement Authority *Multiple decision authority exists in some jurisdictions; one facility missing

yes no

Staff Type Number of Average Number Range of Percentage of Percentage of

Facilities of Staff Number of Staff Staff

With (%) Inmates With Certified

per Staff Formal

member Training

Full-time Contracted 6 (27) 3.2 4–41:1 83 75

Full-time Agency 20 (91) 2.7 10–90:1 70 40

Part-time Contracted 7 (32) 3.7 10–33:1 71 33

Part-time Agency 1 (4) 5.0 15:1 0 100
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

9

needed it may have also negatively affected offender adjustments and attitudes in other components of the shock

incarceration program.

Staff qualifications. Exhibit 5 provides data on substance abuse treatment staff at facilities where treatment

was provided. Nearly 70 percent of the

facilities relied exclusively on correctional agency staff to deliver substance

abuse programming. Of the six facilities using contracted staff, only two relied solely on them, and the remaining

four facilities used a combination of

agency staff and contracted personnel.

The survey findings indicated that

contracted substance abuse treatment

staff were more likely to be certified

and have formal training in substance

abuse treatment than inhouse treatment providers. The majority of substance abuse counselors and educators

were not certified in their respective

States; 41 percent were State-certified,

and 73 percent had received formal

training in substance abuse treatment

programming.

Shock incarceration programs also differed widely in the ratio of substance

abuse treatment providers to client offenders. One program had a ratio of

four clients to one treatment provider.

However, another program had a ratio

of 90 client offenders to 1 treatment

provider. The average inmate/staff ratio in boot camp treatment programs

was 30 to 1.

Therapeutic environments. Many

boot camp facilities contended that the

entire incarcerative experience was

therapeutic in design. Information collected during the case study visits suggested a positive treatment

environment in the smaller facilities,

where a greater degree of staff/inmate

interaction and more individualized

treatment programming were permitted. However, the case studies also illustrated that even those facilities designed as “therapeutic communities”

experienced conflicts often seen in

more traditional incarcerative settings.

For instance, summary punishments

were a common feature of the boot

camp environment. These were often

referred to as “learning experiences”

intended to be therapeutic, not punitive, in nature. Conversations between

the research staff and shock incarceration inmates, along with personal observations at numerous facilities,

indicated that this distinction was often illusory, especially in cases where

the drill instructor’s imposed sanction

was not framed in appropriate therapeutic terms, or the drill instructor’s

enacted role was primarily that of a security official rather than a change

agent.

Overall, therapeutic environments were

rarely found in boot camp facilities,

particularly in those that insisted on a

rigorous military style. For example, if a

confrontation or group therapy session

was dominated by the presence of an

overbearing drill instructor, who disciplined inmates for a spontaneous interchange of ideas and feelings, the

program’s ability to produce therapeutic

results was compromised.

These issues were significant in shock

incarceration facilities because of the

frequency of their occurrence. This

frequency may be related to the common use of the inhouse staffing model

to operate SI treatment programs.

Programming deficits. The study

identified two major substance abuse

programming deficits. First, there was

a marked absence of the therapeutic

community approach in boot camp

substance abuse programming. Only a

few jurisdictions claimed to have

implemented this model, and this

study’s review of their programs raised

questions about whether a therapeutic

model had actually been implemented.

However, many of the boot camp programs stressed the need to develop an

esprit de corps among participants, a

spirit that emphasized reciprocal responsibility, the impact of individual

action upon the larger group, and the

use of peer pressure to reinforce positive and eliminate negative behavior.

Further, most shock incarceration programs espoused a multidimensional

substance abuse approach that emphasized education, the use of peer support,

(i.e., Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step approaches), and the use of pragmatic life

skills-building interventions. Thus, the

therapeutic community approach could

fit well with SI programming philosophy

and be compatible with existing substance abuse treatment interventions

employed by many of the shock incarceration facilities.

Second, as noted earlier, individualized

treatment approaches were rare. Operational concerns, such as high inmate-tostaff ratios and total shock incarceration

facility length-of-stay, were instrumental in limiting the contours of the substance abuse programming offered. At

most facilities, individual counseling by

treatment staff was nearly nonexistent,

and even group counseling was more

nominal than real. Then, too, group approaches, although valid mechanisms to

treat substance abuse, often cannot help

the more serious abuser deal with the

intrapersonal problems and psychological impacts associated with addiction.

Postrelease and aftercare programs.

The need for strong boot camp aftercare

components5 was suggested by the finding that criminally active drug users
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

10

treated in noncorrectional settings reported increased criminality during the

initial 3-month post-treatment period,

after which criminal activity steadily

declined.6 Thus, graduated support and

monitoring have been considered critical steps toward community reintegration of the offender.

Despite this common understanding,

approximately 25 percent of the respondents reported that postrelease

service delivery was not a program

component associated with their boot

camp facilities. When aftercare services were provided, it appears that legal rather than clinical factors dominated the decision process leading to

their implementation (see exhibit 6).

Most survey respondents indicated a

limited set of mechanisms to ensure

continuity between the inprogram portion of the boot camp sanction and the

aftercare component.

Officials of shock incarceration facilities opened after 1990 reported that

prerelease programming was a priority

more frequently than officials from facilities that opened before that date.

However, overall, the research findings indicated minimal coordination

between inhouse and aftercare programming efforts.

Beyond traditional parole or probation

supervision in the aftercare period, the

scope and type of services provided to

shock incarceration releasees varied

widely, particularly with respect to

substance abuse programming. Of the

SI substance abuse aftercare program

models illustrated in exhibit 7, only

seven States operating shock incarceration facilities contracted formally

with substance abuse service providers

to deliver treatment services to shock

incarceration graduates. Only one

Exhibit 7: Shock Incarceration Substance Abuse Aftercare Program Models

Enhanced Brokerage Model

Intensive Parole/Probation

 • Specialized caseloads or intensivly supervised

caseloads

• Specialized requirement for SI releasees

 (e.g., curfew, frequent urinanalysis testing)

Use of Existing Treatment Resources But With Structured Referral Process

Parole/Probation Staff May Identify Themselves as Part

of SI Program

SA Treatment Placement Decision Continues to be

Channelled Through Parole/Probation Agency

Brokerage Model

Traditional Parole/Probation Supervision

Use of Existing SA Treatment Resources

• AA/NA 12-step groups

• Community mental health centers

• City/county/private substance

 clinics

Minimal Contact Between SI Facility Staff and Community Supervision Staff

SA Treatment Placement Decision Rests With Parole/Probation Agency Rather Than With Facility

Contracted Vendors Model

Intensive Probation/Parole Supervision

Contracted SA Treatment Vendors Are Secured to Provide Services

Direct Linkage Between SI Facility and Treatment

Provider(s)

 • Formalized agreements exist stipulating

 treatment parameters (e.g., type, length,

 assessment costs)

Formalized Mechanisms for Placement of SI Offenders

in Treatment

Comprehensive Model

Intensive Parole/Probation Supervision

Integrated Program Developed and Formalized as Part of

SI Program Continuum

• Substance abuse treatment/relapse prevention

• Job development/placement

• Education/training

• housing assistance

• Life-skills programming

Established Linkages Between SI Facility/Program and

Community Services
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

11

State had a comprehensive aftercare

model, which provided a structured

mechanism for aftercare services integrating multiple treatment elements,

over and above substance abuse treatment/relapse prevention and parole or

probation supervision. The program

model emphasized transitional services, such as job development and

placement, education, housing assistance, and life-skills programming.

While other States essentially may

achieve this level of programming

through other venues, this model

uniquely developed and formalized

these service elements as part of the

shock incarceration program continuum structure.

This variation in the type and level of

aftercare services was often a factor of

the relationship of the SI program to

the probation/parole program. In many

instances, aftercare consisted of traditional probation/parole supervision, often augmented by closer monitoring,

drug testing, and referral to substance

abuse treatment resources within the

community. Few jurisdictions developed more formalized links with substance abuse treatment providers (who

generally serviced noncorrectional

populations as well). Fewer yet extended the continuum of treatment

back into the community in a meaningful way. In general, systematic delivery of substance abuse treatment

services during aftercare was rarely a

well-structured and clearly demarcated program element of the overall

correctional sanction imposed on boot

camp participants.

Summary and implications

Correctional boot camp substance

abuse programming has been driven to

a large extent by general structural

and administrative concerns relating to

shock incarceration facilities, rather

than by offender needs or therapeutic

considerations. A number of promising

programs exist, but to realize the potential for delivering effective substance abuse programs within shock

incarceration environments, this research study suggests the need for

greater emphasis in five areas:

● Facility-specific programming and

greater use of therapeutic community

models/approaches,

● Individualized treatment programming,

● Use of qualified professional

subtance abuse treatment personnel,

● Aftercare programs that link the

imprisonment and community release

phases of the boot camp sanction, and

● Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of treatment strategies.

Since completion of these survey efforts, many additional boot camps have

opened or are about to open. These

newer programs may exhibit different

characteristics than those typical of

more established facilities. Thus, findings from the present study may not be

fully generalizable to the current universe of adult shock facilities.7

 Nevertheless, this investigation spawned a

number of specific strategies that may

facilitate the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of new SI

substance abuse treatment and aftercare programs and enhance the effectiveness of existing ones.

Facility-specific programming. More

comprehensive planning processes

that include the input of substance

abuse treatment professionals could

lead to the implementation of shock

incarceration programs that best fit the

particular SI facility’s environment.

Agencies involved in the funding, development, and implementation of

shock incarceration facilities must

continue to reinforce the development

of programs that are most likely to promote positive offender change. Since

programs oriented primarily toward

hard work, physical training, and drill

and ceremony have not been found to

produce the desired outcomes, policymakers and correctional officials

should consider the benefits of augmenting current programming efforts.

Although more treatment-oriented

shock incarceration facilities have not

proved, definitively, to successfully affect recidivism rates, both current

theory and research findings suggest

that this approach is the one most

likely to achieve such results.

Greater use of therapeutic community models/approaches. Those shock

incarceration facilities with only a

substance abuse education component

should consider expanding their services to include a substance abuse

treatment component, and SI facilities

already providing substance abuse

treatment should consider the explicit

adoption of therapeutic community

models and/or approaches. By directly

tackling the multiple issues surrounding the provision of treatment in a primarily custodial setting—issues

relating to confidentiality, sanctioning

mechanisms, staff selection and monitoring, staff/inmate interaction, and

“prisonization” processes—correctional officials and substance abuse

treatment providers in SI facilities

could open the way for establishing

therapeutic environments. Group processes of change, which include some

inmate role in the basic governance of

the immediate living environment, are
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

12

also important to this concept and

should be addressed.

Individualized treatment programming. In effective drug treatment programs, inmates are placed in

individualized treatment programs on

the basis of standardized substance

abuse assessment processes. Inmate

input into the establishment of individual treatment plans is encouraged.

All programs should consider introducing psychotherapeutic-based interventions, including individual and

small group therapies for those individuals needing such interventions.

Individualized counseling could be

helpful, particularly to those offenders

with serious substance dependencies.

The therapeutic model places primary

focus on development of multimodal

approaches that are clinically relevant

to the offender population.

Use of qualified professional substance abuse treatment personnel.

Shock incarceration facilities should

make stronger attempts to ensure that

substance abuse treatment providers

are trained, qualified treatment professionals. The hiring of contractual staff

may be a desirable option in this regard. Educational and experiential

qualifications should be at a level to

ensure this goal. In addition, the ratio

of inmates to treatment staff is an important consideration; it is recommended that facilities that have

inmate/treatment staff ratios above 50

to 1 make all possible efforts to decrease these ratios. Effective program

implementation, particularly with regard to individualized approaches, is

difficult if not impossible to achieve

with high inmate/treatment staff ratios.

Aftercare programs that link the imprisonment and community release

phases of the boot camp sanction.

Statutory and/or organizational barriers to envisioning the shock incarceration experience as a continuum that

includes both institutional and aftercare phases should be reduced or, if

possible, eliminated. Implementation

of this vision involves extensive enhancements to prerelease and

postrelease programming activities to

ensure a continuity of care throughout

the respective program phases.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of treatment strategies. Finally, more evaluative research needs

to be conducted on the impact of

shock incarceration substance abuse

programs on offenders and the effects

of specific substance abuse treatment

strategies on offender recidivism and

substance abuse dependence.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

13

Notes

1. Shaw, J.W. and D.L. MacKenzie,

“Shock Incarceration and Its Impact

on the Lives of Problem Drinkers,”

American Journal of Criminal Justice,

16(1)(1991), pp. 63-96.

2. Lipton, D.S., G.P. Falkin, and

H.K. Wexler, “Correctional Drug

Abuse Treatment in the United States:

An Overview,” In C. Leukefled and F.

Tims eds., Drug Abuse Treatment in

Prisons and Jails, National Institute

on Drug Abuse, Research Monograph

Series, No. 118, Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office,

1992, pp. 8-31.

3. Peters, R., “Drug Treatment in

Jails and Detention Settings,” In J.

Inciardi ed., Drug Treatment in Criminal Justice, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, 1993, pp. 44-80.

4. Shaw, J.W. and D.L. MacKenzie,

“The One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug Offenders

and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers Graduating From

Shock Incarceration,” Journal of

Criminal Justice, (20)(1992), pp. 501-

516.

5. Wexler, H.K. and R. Williams,

“The Stay ‘N Out Therapeutic Community: Prison Treatment for Substance

Abusers,” Journal of Psychoactive

Drugs, 18(3)(1986), pp. 221-230.

6. Hubbard, R.L., M.E. Marsden,

J.V. Rachal, H.J. Harwood, E.R.

Cavanaugh and H.M. Ginsburg, Drug

Abuse Treatment: A National Study of

Effectiveness, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1989,

pp. 90-92.

7. Gransky, L.A., T.C. Castellano,

and E.L. Cowles, “Is There a ‘Second

Generation’ Of Shock Incarceration

Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of

Goals, Program Elements, and Drug

Treatment Services in Boot Camp Programs,” In J. Smylka and W. Selke

eds., Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson Publishing Co., 1995, pp.

89-112.

Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., is the

Director of the Center for Legal

Studies and Associate Professor

of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D., is

Associate Professor of Administration of Justice at the Center

for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and Corrections at

Southern Illinois University at

Carbondale. Laura A. Gransky,

M.S., is Public Affairs Research

Associate in the Center for Legal

Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Supported under award #91–DD–CX–K055 from

the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of

view in this document are those of the authors

and do no necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

NCJ 155062
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

14

The Latest Criminal Justice

Videotape Series From NIJ:

Research in Progress

Learn about the latest developments in criminal justice research from

prominent criminal justice experts.

NIJ’s Research in Progress videotape series features well-known scholars describing

current studies and how they relate to existing criminal justice research. Each

60-minute lecture is given before an audience of criminal justice researchers,

practitioners, and policymakers and includes a question and answer segment.

Ideal for use in the classroom, training seminar, office, or home.

Illicit Use of Drugs

Prevention and Treatment

Individual titles are available for only $19 in the United States and $24 in Canada and

other countries. To order, send check or money order, payable to NCJRS, in U.S. dollars

drawn on a U.S. bank to NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. To order by credit

card, call 800–851–3420.

NCJ 152692

James Inciardi, Ph.D., Director, Drug and

Alcohol Center, University of Delaware: A

Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug

Abuse Treatment.

Sentencing Practices

NCJ 152236

Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D., Director, Criminal Justice Research Program, The RAND

Corporation: Three Strikes, You’re Out: Benefits and Costs of California’s New MandatorySentencing Law.

NCJ 152237

Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D., Director of

the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut

Niedersachsen: Sentencing Policy and Crime

Rates in Reunified Germany.

NCJ 152235

Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D., J. Erik Jonsson

University Professor of Urban Systems and

Operations Research, H. John Heinz School

III of Public Policy Management, Carnegie

Mellon University: Youth Violence, Guns, and

Illicit Drug Markets.

NCJ 152238

Arthur L. Kellerman, M.D., M.P.H.,

Director of the Center for Injury Control,

School of Public Health and Associate Professor in the Division of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University:

Understanding and Preventing Violence: A

Public Health Perspective.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

15

Selected Recent NIJ Publications and Products

Illicit Use of Drugs/Drug Prevention and

Treatment

Chaiken, Marcia R., Identifying and Responding to New Forms of Drug Abuse:

Lessons From “Crack” and “Ice,” NIJ Issues and Practices, September 1993, NCJ

144403.

Drug Law Enforcement, NCJRS Topical

Bibliography. Hard copy, $17.50; 3.5"

diskette, $20.00 (plus postage and handling). TBO 10616.

Drug Law Enforcement Resource Package

(contains publications, statistical material,

readings lists, referral lists, and literature

searches outside NCJRS Document Data

Base). $32.00 plus postage and handling.

NCJ 139308.

Drugs and Crime, NCJRS Topical Bibliography. Hard copy, $17.50; 3.5" diskette,

$20.00 (plus postage and handling). TBO

10614.

Drugs: Treating Offenders, NIJ Crime File

Videotape, 1990. VHS, $17.00 plus postage and handling. Also available on 3/4"

tape, $23.00 (plus postage and handling).

NCJ 123673.

Finn, Peter, The Manhattan District

Attorney’s Narcotics Eviction Program, NIJ

Program Focus, May 1995, NCJ 153146.

Hepburn, John R., C. Wayne Johnston and

Scott Rogers, Do Drugs. Do Time: An

Evaluation of the Maricopa County Demand Reduction Program, NIJ Research

in Brief, October 1994, NCJ 149016.

1993 Drug Use Forecasting, Annual Report

on Adult Arrestees: Drugs and Crime in

America’s Cities, November 1994, NCJ

147411.

1993 Drug Use Forecasting, Annual Report

on Juvenile Arrestees/Detainees: Drugs and

Crime in America’s Cities, November 1994,

NCJ 150709.

Impact of Systemwide Drug Testing in

Multnomah County, Oregon, NIJ Update,

June 1995. FS 000083.

Weingart, Saul N., Francis X. Hartmann

and David Osborne, Case Studies of Community Anti-Drug Efforts, NIJ Research in

Brief, October 1994, NCJ 149316.

Wellisch, Jean, Michael L. Prendergast

and M. Douglas Anglin, Drug-Abusing

Women Offenders: Results of a National

Survey, October 1994, NCJ 149261.

Boot Camps

Clark, Cheri L., David W. Aziz and Doris

L. MacKenzie, Shock Incarceration in New

York: Focus on Treatment, NIJ Program

Focus, August 1994, NCJ 148410.

Cronin, Roberta C. with assistance of Mei

Han, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile

Offenders: Overview and Update, NIJ Research Report, October 1994, NCJ

149175.

McDonald, Douglas C., Managing Prison

Health Care and Costs, NIJ Issues and

Practices, May 1995, NCJ 152768.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton and Claire

Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration, NIJ Research Report, November 1994, NCJ 150062; also available as a

2-page NIJ Update, Researchers Evaluate

Eight Shock Incarceration Programs, FS

000070.

Violent Behavior and Criminal Behavior

DeJong, William, Preventing Interpersonal

Violence Among Youth: An Introduction to

School, Community, and Mass Media

Strategies, NIJ Issues and Practices, November 1994, NCJ 150484; also available

as a 2-page NIJ Update, Preventing Interpersonal Violence Among Youths, FS

000069.

Drinking and Crime, NIJ Crime File Videotape, 1985, VHS, $17.00 plus postage

and handling. Also available on 3/4" tape,

$23.00, plus postage and handling. NCJ

097221.

Earls, Felton J. and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.,

Breaking the Cycle: Predicting and Preventing Crime, NIJ Research Report, December 1994, NCJ 140541.

Finn, Peter and Marie O’Brien Hylton, Using Civil Remedies for Criminal Behavior:

Rationale, Case Studies, and Constitutional Issues, NIJ Issues and Practices,

October 1994, NCJ 151757.

Johnson, Claire, Barbara Webster and Edward Connors, Prosecuting Gangs: A National Assessment, NIJ Research in Brief,

February 1995, NCJ 151785.

Kelley, Patricia, Mark H. Moore and Jeffrey A. Roth, Violence in Cornet City: A

Problem-Solving Exercise, NIJ Issues and

Practices, April 1995, NCJ 154258.

Sherman, Lawrence W., James W. Shaw

and Dennis P. Rogan, The Kansas City

Gun Experiment, NIJ Research in Brief,

January 1995, NCJ 150855; also available

as a 2-page NIJ Update, Kansas City Gun

Experiment, FS 000072.

PAVNET (Partnership Against Violence

Network)

Offers help to States and local communities. Consists of approximately 1,000 antiviolence programs, information resources,

technical assistance programs, and Federal

and private foundation funding sources.

PAVNET Volume 1, hard copy, $17.00.

NCJ 150044.

PAVNET Volume 2, hard copy, $12.00.

NCJ 150045.

PAVNET Online User’s Guide (offers instructions on how to access and navigate

PAVNET data on the Internet), hard copy.

NCJ 152057.

PAVNET on WordPerfect Disk, $16.00.

NCJ 152402.

PAVNET on ASCII Disk, $16.00. NCJ

152403.

___________________________________________________

These publications can be obtained free,

except where indicated, from the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS),

at 800–851–3420 or e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com. Referring to

the NCJ, TBO, or FS number at the end of

each citation will expedite order processing.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

16

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91