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.

This study explores inmates' perceptions of institutional change when a Midwestern state converted a minimum-security prison to a gang-free facility. The discussion examines inmates' perspectives of the prison environment using H. Toch's 1992 eight prison environmental dimensions through focus-group interviews with three different subgroups. The first group consisted of inmates imprisoned at the facility pre- and postconversion. The second was composed of inmates transferred to the gang-free facility from other minimum-security facilities as part of the conversion. The third focus group consisted of newly admitted offenders sent directly to the facility from the correctional system's reception and classification centers. The findings suggest that two dimensions of personal control—choice and predictability—influenced inmates' acceptance of major institutional environment change. Implications for program design and institutional management are discussed.

In this paper it is argued that a need exists for correctional administrators and researchers to examine their thinking about long-term confinement and long-term inmates if they are to advance the understanding of long-termers and improve the management of this segment of the prison population in the future. Specifically, three areas merit greater attention. First, the ways in which concepts such as long terms and long-term inmates are operationalized need to be appraised. Our knowledge of long-termers and long-term imprisonment is hampered by amnbiguous definitions and vague conceptualizations regarding these sentences and the inmates who are serving such terms. Second, research is challenging conventional wisdom about the impact of prison environments upon those who are confined for prolonged periods and about long-termers' ability to adapt to extended imprisonment. Views that extended years of confinement gradually wear away at the long-termers' physical and mental capabilities are giving way to models that stress individual strategies for successfully coping with long-term imprisonment. Third, recent correctional research suggests that substantial changes are occurring in the makeup of the long-term inmate population, particularly as to sentence lengths, offense types, and racial composition. These changes are accompanied by changes in the behavior of this population that require different approaches to managing these sentences. Collectively, the circumstances associated with these three areas complicate the efforts of prison administrators and researchers to learn which management approaches and program strategies work best with long-term inmates and under what conditions.

This paper examines two identifiable infrastructure dimensions, private and public organizations and treatment and security paradigms, that must be merged for seamless or boundaryless treatment regimens to be operationalized in secure correctional environments. Three infrastructure elements are considered: goals, organizational environments, and organizational levels. Using data collected from a recent process evaluation regarding the implementation of a residential substance abuse treatment program within a secure state juvenile correctional institution, it appears that perceptual boundaries were in part established by incongruities between the public sector correctional organization and the private sector treatment provider regarding these infrastructure elements. The findings suggest that the initiation of partial mission privatization in a correctional environment, particularly as it relates to the provision of treatment services in the form of a therapeutic community, is dubious at best.A conflict between the treatment and incapacitation/punishment aspects of the imprisonment sanction has long been recognized. Indeed, the various incarceration "models" characterize deeply held philosophical positions regarding the nature and focus of the prison experience. The lack of consensus in this arena has spurred what Allen and Simonsen (2001) have referred to in their introductory correctional text as a "model muddle" (p. 372).Recently, yet another correctional model dimension, privatization, has

No abstract