Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 227–243

Collaborative behavioral management: integration and intensification of parole and outpatient addiction treatment services in the Step’n Out study

  • Peter D. Friedmann
  • Anne G. Rhodes
  • Faye S. Taxman
  • for the Step’n Out Research Group of CJ-DATS
Article

Abstract

Integration of community parole and addiction treatment holds promise for optimizing the participation of drug-involved parolees in re-entry services, but intensification of services might yield greater rates of technical violations. Collaborative behavioral management (CBM) integrates the roles of parole officers and treatment counselors to provide role induction counseling, contract for pro-social behavior, and to deliver contingent reinforcement of behaviors consistent with contracted objectives. Attendance at both parole and addiction treatment are specifically reinforced. The Step’n Out study of the Criminal Justice–Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) randomly allocated 486 drug-involved parolees to either collaborative behavioral management or traditional parole with 3-month and 9-month follow-up. Bivariate and multivariate regression models found that, in the first 3 months, the CBM group had more parole sessions, face-to-face parole sessions, days on which parole and treatment occurred on the same day, treatment utilization and individual counseling, without an increase in parole violations. We conclude that CBM integrated parole and treatment as planned, and intensified parolees’ utilization of these services, without increasing violations.

Keywords

Addiction treatment Behavioral management Community reinforcement approach Community supervision Graduated sanctions Parole Probation Role induction Substance abuse 

References

  1. Byrne, J. M., Taxman, F. S., & Young, D. (2002). Emerging roles and responsibilities in the reentry partnership initiative: new ways of doing business. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  2. Camp, C. G., & Camp, G. M. (2002). 2001 corrections yearbook. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (1994). Combining substance abuse treatment with intermediate sanctions for adults in the criminal justice system. Treatment improvement protocol (TIP) no. 12. [DHHS publication no. (SMA) 94-3004 ed.] Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
  4. CJ-DATS (2004). CJ-DATS Core Instruments. http://cjdats.org/ka/ka-2.cfm?folder_id=269. Accessed 12 June 2007.
  5. Ehrman, R. N., & Robbins, S. J. (1994). Reliability and validity of 6-month timeline reports of cocaine and heroin use in a methadone population. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 62, 843–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finney, J. W., Wilbourne, P. L., & Moos, R. H. (2007). Psychosocial treatments for substance use disorders. In P. E. Nathan & J. M. Gorman (Eds.), A guide to treatments that work (3rd ed., pp. 179–202). USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. First, M. B. (2002). The DSM series and experience with DSM-IV. Psychopathology, 35(2–3), 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher, B. W., & Chandler, R. K. (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations. A research-based guide. (NIH publication no. 06-5316 ed.) Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  9. Friedmann, P. D., Katz, E. C., Rhodes, A. G., Taxman, F. S., O’Connell, D. J., Frisman, L. K., et al. (2008). Collaborative behavioral management for drug-involved parolees: rationale and design of the Step’n Out Study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 290–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall, E. A., Zuniga, R., Cartier, J., Anglin, M. D., Danila, B., Ryan, T., et al. (2003). Staying In Touch: A Fieldwork Manual Of Tracking Procedures For Locating Substance Abusers In Follow-Up Studies. from http://www.uclaisap.org/trackingmanual/manual.html
  11. Hanlon, T. E., Nurco, D. N., Bateman, R. W., & O’Grady, K. E. (1998). Response of drug abuser parolees to a combination of treatment and intensive supervision. Prison Journal, 78(1), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Broome, K. M., & Simpson, D. D. (1998). Legal pressure and treatment retention in a national sample of long-term residential programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbard, R. L., Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., Harwood, H. J., Cavanaugh, E. R., & Ginzburg, H. M. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: a national study of effectiveness. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  14. Iguchi, M. Y., Belding, M. A., Morral, A. R., Lamb, R. J., & Husband, S. D. (1997). Reinforcing operants other than abstinence in drug abuse treatment: an effective alternative for reducing drug use. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 65, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inciardi, J. A. (1971). The use of parole prediction with institutionalized narcotic addicts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, E. C., Brown, B. S., Schwartz, R. P., Weintraub, E., Barksdale, W., & Robinson, R. (2005). Role induction: a method for enhancing early retention in outpatient drug-free treatment. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 72, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (2002). Screening and referral for substance-abuse treatment in the criminal justice system. In C. G. Leukefeld, F. M. Tims & D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of Drug Offenders: Policies and Issues (pp. 259–272). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1994 (No. Publication No. NCJ-193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  20. Lash, S. J. (1998). Increasing participation in substance abuse aftercare treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lash, S. J., Petersen, G. E., O’Connor, E. A., & Lehmann, L. P. (2001). Social reinforcement of substance abuse aftercare group therapy attendance. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marlowe, D. B. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science & Practice Perspectives, 2, 4–14.Google Scholar
  23. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyers, R. J., Smith, J. E., & Lash, D. N. (2003). The community reinforcement approach. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 16, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, W. R. (1996). Form 90. A structured assessment interview for drinking and related behaviors. Project MATCH monograph series., 5(In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors), 96-4004.Google Scholar
  26. Office of Human Research Protections. (2005). Code of federal regulations: Part 46 protection of human subjects. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#skip
  27. Petersilia, J. (1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 54(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  28. Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade with experimenting with intermediate sanctions: what have we learned? Perspectives, 23, 39–44.Google Scholar
  29. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 17, pp. 281–336). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Polakow, R. L., & Doctor, R. M. (1974). A behavioral modification program for adult drug offenders. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 63–69.Google Scholar
  31. Seiter, R. P. (2002). Prisoner reentry and the role of parole officers. Federal Probation, 66, 50–54.Google Scholar
  32. Simpson, D. D. (1981). Treatment for drug abuse. Follow-up outcomes and length of time spent. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 875–880.Google Scholar
  33. Simpson, D. D., & Sells, S. B. (1990). Opioid addiction and treatment: a 12-year follow-up. Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
  34. Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 11, 294–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, R. R., Milan, M. A., Wood, L. F., & McKee, J. M. (1976). The correctional officer as a behavioral technician. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 3, 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992). Time line follow-back: A technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In R. Litten & J. Allen (Eds.), Measuring Alcohol Consumption (pp. 41–72). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stark, M. J., & Kane, B. J. (1985). General and specific psychotherapy role induction with substance-abusing clients. International Journal of the Addictions, 20, 1135–1141.Google Scholar
  38. Stout, R. L., Wirtz, P. W., Carbonari, J. P., & Del Boca, F. K. (1994). Ensuring balanced distribution of prognostic factors in treatment outcome research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 12(Suppl), 70–75.Google Scholar
  39. Sung, H. E., Belenko, S., & Feng, L. (2001). Treatment compliance in the trajectory of treatment progress among offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taxman, F. S. (2002). Supervision: exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66, 14–27.Google Scholar
  41. Taxman, F. S. (2008). No illusion: offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision model. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taxman, F. S., & Sherman, S. (1998). Seamless systems of care: using automation to improve outcomes. In L. Moriarty & D. Carter (Eds.), Criminal justice technology in the 21st century. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  43. Taxman, F. S., Young, D., & Byrne, J. M. (2003). Transforming offender reentry into public safety: lessons from OJP’s reentry partnership initiative. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taxman, F. S., Sheperdson, E., & Byrne, J. M. (2004). Tools of the trade: a guide to incorporating science into practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  45. Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M., & Harrison, L. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: the state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thanner, M. H., & Taxman, F. S. (2003). Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walters, G. D., & McDonough, J. R. (1998). The lifestyle criminality screening form as a predictor of federal parole/probation/supervised release outcome. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 173–181.Google Scholar
  48. Warren, N. C., & Rice, L. N. (1972). Structuring and stabilizing of psychotherapy for low-prognosis clients. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 39, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yeaton, W. H., & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology (49), 156-167.Google Scholar
  50. Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang, Z., Friedmann, P. D., & Gerstein, D. R. (2003). Does retention matter? Treatment duration and improvement in drug use. Addiction, 98, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter D. Friedmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne G. Rhodes
    • 3
  • Faye S. Taxman
    • 3
  • for the Step’n Out Research Group of CJ-DATS
  1. 1.Center on Systems, Outcomes & Quality in Chronic Disease & Disability, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical CenterAlpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Rhode Island Research Center of CJ-DATS, Division of General Internal MedicineRhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.CJDATS Coordinating CenterGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations