Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Camp, C. G., & Camp, G. M. (2002). 2001 corrections yearbook. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • CJ-DATS (2004). CJ-DATS Core Instruments. http://cjdats.org/ka/ka-2.cfm?folder_id=269. Accessed 12 June 2007.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • First, M. B. (2002). The DSM series and experience with DSM-IV. Psychopathology, 35(2–3), 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inciardi, J. A. (1971). The use of parole prediction with institutionalized narcotic addicts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8, 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lash, S. J. (1998). Increasing participation in substance abuse aftercare treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24, 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science & Practice Perspectives, 2, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, R. J., Smith, J. E., & Lash, D. N. (2003). The community reinforcement approach. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 16, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Petersilia, J. (1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 54(1), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade with experimenting with intermediate sanctions: what have we learned? Perspectives, 23, 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Polakow, R. L., & Doctor, R. M. (1974). A behavioral modification program for adult drug offenders. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 63–69.

  • Seiter, R. P. (2002). Prisoner reentry and the role of parole officers. Federal Probation, 66, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simpson, D. D., & Sells, S. B. (1990). Opioid addiction and treatment: a 12-year follow-up. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S. (2002). Supervision: exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66, 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Warren, N. C., & Rice, L. N. (1972). Structuring and stabilizing of psychotherapy for low-prognosis clients. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 39, 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Friedmann, P. D., & Gerstein, D. R. (2003). Does retention matter? Treatment duration and improvement in drug use. Addiction, 98, 673–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded under a cooperative agreement from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health (NIDA/NIH), with support from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (all part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services); and from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions by NIDA, the Coordinating Center (George Mason University/Virginia Commonwealth University/University of Maryland at College Park), and the Research Centers participating in CJ-DATS (Brown University, Lifespan Hospital; Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services; National Development and Research Institutes, Inc., Center for Therapeutic Community Research; National Development and Research Institutes, Inc., Center for the Integration of Research and Practice; Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research; University of Delaware, Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies; University of Kentucky, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research; University of California at Los Angeles, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; and University of Miami, Center for Treatment Research on Adolescent Drug Abuse. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, NIDA/NIH, other CJ-DATS participants, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. More information on the Step’n Out study and CJ-DATS can be found at http://cjdats.org.

Step’n Out research group of CJ-DATS

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH (lead investigator), Jennifer Clarke, MD, MPH, Randall Hoskinson, Jr., MA; Rhode Island Research Center, General Medicine Research Unit, Rhode Island Hospital, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI; Jennifer Rose, PhD; Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT; Elizabeth Katz, PhD; Friends Research Institute, Baltimore, MD; Faye S. Taxman, PhD, Anne G. Rhodes, MS; CJ-DATS Collaborating Center, George Mason University, Fairfax VA; Daniel O’Connell, PhD, Steven S. Martin, PhD; Mid-Atlantic Research Center, Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies, University of Delaware, Wilmington DE; Linda K. Frisman, PhD, Mark Litt, PhD, Eleni Rodis, MA; Connecticut Research Center, Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and University of Connecticut; William Burdon, PhD, Michael L. Prendergast, PhD, Carter Bartee, MA; Pacific Coast Research Center, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles; Bennett W. Fletcher, PhD; Services Research Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research (DESPR), National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville MD

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter D. Friedmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Friedmann, P.D., Rhodes, A.G., Taxman, F.S. et al. Collaborative behavioral management: integration and intensification of parole and outpatient addiction treatment services in the Step’n Out study. J Exp Criminol 5, 227–243 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9079-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9079-3

Keywords

Navigation