Problems in Creating Boundaryless Treatment Regimens in Secure Correctional Environments: Private Sector-Public Agency Infrastructure Compatibility

Abstract

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

Offender Rehabilitation: Examining Changes in Inmate Treatment Characteristics, Program Participation, and Institutional Behavior

“…Offenders who had been convicted of a violent offense resulted in an increase of B = .042, .075, and .074 in participation in a vocational program for 1991, 1997, and 2004, respectively-a trend that appears to be strengthening over time. This finding was not expected, since inmates with a history of violence are likely to be excluded from programming as a result of perceived security risks (Burdon, Farabee, Prendergast, Messina, & Cartier, 2002;Cowles & Dorman, 2003).…”