Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper examines two identifiable infrastructure dimensions, private and public organizations and treatment and security paradigms, that must be merged for seam-less 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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen, H. E., & Simonsen, C. E. (2001). Corrections in America: An introduction (9th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Castellano, T. C., & Beck, R. (1991). A cross-classification of prison substance abuse program models: The relevance of structural fit. Journal of Crime & Justice, XIV(1), 123-144.

Christie, N. (1993). Crime control as industry. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (1990). The duty to govern: A critical perspective on the private management of prisons and jails. In D. C. McDonald (Ed.), Private prisons and the public interest (pp. 155-178). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Easton, S. T. (Ed.) (1998). Privatizing correctional services. Vancouver, Canada: The Fraser Institute.

Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., Cartier, J., Wexler, H., Knight, K., & Anglin, M. D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 150-162.

Gilbert, M. J. (1996). Private confinement and the role of government in a civil society. In G. L. Mays & T. Gray (Eds.), Privatization and the provision of correctional services: Context and consequences. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Harland, A. T. (1996). Correctional options that work: Structuring the inquiry. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

James, A. L., Bottomley, A. K., Liebling, A., & Clare, E. (1997). Privatizing prisons: Rhetoric and reality. London: Sage.

11.

Lilly, J. R., & Knepper, P. (1992). The corrections-commercial complex. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 150-166.

12.

Logan, C. H. (1990). Private prisons: Cons and pros. New York: Oxford University Press.

13.

McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics. Berkley: University of California Press.

14.

Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Ogle, R. S. (1999). Prison privatization: An environmental catch 22. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 579-600.

16.

Palumbo, D. J., & Hallett, M. A. (1993). Conflict versus consensus model in policy evaluation and implementation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 11-23.

17.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

18.

Shichor, D. (1995). Punishment for profit: Private prisons/public concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Shichor, D. (1999). Privatizing correctional institutions: An organizational perspective. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 226-249.

20.

Taxman, F. S. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(2), 59-74.

21.

Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2000). The importance of systems in improving offender out-comes: New frontiers in treatment integrity. Justice Research and Policy, 2(2), 37-55.

22.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Toch, H. (1997). Corrections: A humanistic approach. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

24.

Wexler, H. K., Falkin, G. P., & Lipton, D. S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abusers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 71-92.

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

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References