A PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A PROGRAM EVALUATION
FOR THE DRUG OFFENDER WORK CAMP--
CHARLES E "BILL" JOHNSON
Dr. Philip D. Holley
C & H Research Consultants, Inc.
P. O. Box 2072
Weatherford, OK 73096
Research Conducted for the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
September 12, 1997
Views expressed in this research are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, or the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center. The research was conducted separately and independently from the university affiliations currently held by the authors.
A PROGRAM DESCRIPTION OF
THE DRUG OFFENDER WORK CAMP--
CHARLES E. "Bill" JOHNSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER
One of the fundamental and most pressing questions arising out of the "war on drugs" is, "What do we do with younger, first time drug user/dealer inmates?" Should we utilize costly bed space for these offenders sentenced to long sentences, or should we look to some other alternative? At the same time, probation is seen by citizens, elected officials, and some correctional experts as too lenient on these offenders (Quinlan, 1993).
The nationwide response to these realities and questions seems to be a two-fold one. First, the youth (and younger adults) are seen as beset with low self-esteem as well as lacking discipline and the ability to regulate one's own behavior (Benda, Toombs, & Whiteside, 1996) . Consequently, we have seen the proliferation of regimented, military style "boot camps" (sometimes referred to as "shock incarceration" programs) specifically designed to instill discipline in the younger inmates (see MacKenzie & Souryal, 1995; MacKenzie, 1995; MacKenzie & Brame, 1995; MacKenzie, Brame, McDowell, & Souryal, 1995; "Status report on boot camps," 1995; Quinlan, 1993; Parent, 1989; Holley & Connelly, 1993; Holley & Wright, 1994).
While there are critics of these programs (see Wees, 1996; Salerno, 1994; Holley & Connelly, 1993; Holley & Wright, 1994; MacKenzie & associates), boot camps appear to be continuing if not expanding both in terms of program numbers and bed capacity. Certainly boot camp programs have evolved over the nearly 15 years of their existence (Bureau of Justice Statistics, A national survey of aftercare provisions for boot camp graduates,1996; Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Boot camp" drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review, 1995; 1995a). Initially, boot camps provided educational programming, including some drug education, although there was a serious deficiency in drug treatment programming.
Second, there has been a substantial increase in the perceived need to provide some form of drug treatment/therapy to those convicted of drug-related crimes and those admitting to having a substance abuse problem--be it alcohol or other drugs (Lipton, et al., 1992; Murray, 1991). Thus, correctional systems--either utilizing facility staff or staff from contract agencies who offer programs within prisons--have increasingly provided drug treatment for youthful offenders in a therapeutic modality (Torres, 1996; Bureau of Justice Statistics, The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision, 1995; Lipton, et al., 1992). These efforts have persisted and expanded in spite of the vestiges of the widespread belief that "nothing works" in correctional programming and in spite of the punitive nature of public and political sentiment regarding crime and criminals.
Oklahoma has also responded to these questions in similar fashion. Oklahoma was one of the first states to implement a regimented, military-style boot camp (Holley & Connelly, 1994, Holley & Wright, 1995), and currently offers programs for both male and female inmates. The Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) program for males was started in 1983, and was designed for young, first time (and usually less serious) incarcerates--although not all the offenders have been convicted of drug-related charges--through the use of military-type discipline.
Oklahoma also provides several drug treatment programs to those who are seen as having a substance abuse problem. The state's newest (and most unique) venture in the treatment of young, first time drug-related offenders is the Drug Offender Work Camp (DOWC), located at the William E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center (BJCC) in Alva, Oklahoma. Opened in 1995, this facility incorporates both responses to the "war on drugs" within one program. BJCC is a free-standing correctional facility dedicated to the implementation of a combined regimented boot camp-type program and a drug treatment program. While it is a minimum security prison, it is also a boot camp and a therapeutic community.
Top of page
PURPOSE OF THE PAPER
The primary purpose of the paper is to provide a thorough description of the DOWC program, as it operated during the summer of 1997. It is important to recognize that the program is an evolving one, and has undergone changes since that time.
Top of page
The literature will be briefly reviewed, focusing on shock incarceration programs or boot camps as they have been implemented in Oklahoma and around the nation in recent years. This section will also examine treatment programs, Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), and therapeutic communities as they exist in various states as well as in Oklahoma prisons.
Boot Camps have been in existence since the mid-1980's and are described by MacKenzie and Souryal as having a "military atmosphere involving drills, physical training and work" (1991, p.90). Goals of the boot camp programs range from rehabilitation to recidivism reduction, to lowering overcrowding conditions. Boot camps allow the inmate an alternative to the longer sentence in the traditional prison setting. By participating in the boot camp, participants--it is believed and expected--will learn the discipline necessary to live a productive and non-criminal life in society. While boot camp programs vary in design (MacKenzie & Souryal, 1991; MacKenzie & Parent, 1992; Sechrest, 1989, Camp & Camp, 1992; Holley & Connelly, 1994), they have continued to be used as an alternative to traditional sentencing. Now that "something works" is seen as a viable option in the correctional setting (DiIulio, 1991), boot camps have spread across the country and have even been discussed on national talk shows such as Geraldo.
Military style discipline--often made "quasi-military" for the prison setting--and physical training are used to "motivate" the "trainee" immediately upon entry into the program (Holley & Connelly, 1993; Holley & Wright, 1994). Beginning with the initial "shock-in" period, the inmate is subjected to the rules and methods of military discipline, including summary punishment (MacKenzie, 1995). Continuous exercises, training, and rigid daily schedules allow the inmate to build self-esteem in the context of the military type setting, such as platoons, while incorporating several possible forms of treatment--ranging from drug/alcohol education or treatment to academic education (MacKenzie, 1995; Holley & Connelly, 1993).
Studies completed on shock incarceration or boot camp programs appear to show mixed results (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration, 1994). Some report that those going through the boot camp have lower rates of recidivism (Sechrest, 1989), while others report no difference or higher rates (MacKenzie & Souryal, 1994).
Oklahoma's Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID), according to Frank (1991), is one of the nation's oldest correctional boot camp programs. It was established in 1983 by the ODOC and was the first boot camp program accredited by the American Correctional Association. No significant differences in recidivism rates were found when RID graduates were compared to those receiving probation or the traditional incarceration (Holley & Wright, 1995; 1994).
The research by Cowles and associates ( Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Boot camp" drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review,1995, 1995a), Cronin and Han (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update, 1994), and by MacKenzie and associates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration, 1994) have highlighted several problems. Overwhelmingly there has been a call for more careful and indepth evaluation of these programs, using rigorous scientific methodology. Further, the researchers have recognized the need for more and better treatment programs, including academic and drug programs. And, since the early programs lacked any aftercare component, these are now proposed as essential (see also Holley & Connelly, 1993).
This section with deal with (1) treatment programs in various states and (2) treatment programs in Oklahoma.
Treatment Programs in Various States
Treatment programs--such as academic and vocational training--have been used in correctional settings for many years, with an upsurge during the period immediately following the "nothing works" era of the 1970's. Since this time, a scientific paradigm emerged articulating a "something works" view(DiIulio, 1991). Specifically, it is now widely asserted that certain treatment programs have been effective in reducing recidivism among drug offenders. Lipton recanted his earlier findings and suggests that a more in-depth look at treatment programs needs to undertaken (Bureau of Justice Statistics, The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision, 1995).
Several national studies have compared programs in order to determine the positive types of treatment programs available (see Falkin, et al., 1992; Bureau of Justice Statistics, The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision, 1995; Office of National Drug Control Policy, Treatment protocol effectiveness study,1996; Leukefeld & Tims,1992). Elements of effective treatment have been identified as those using a "therapeutic community" design, those having effective staff, and those with an effective aftercare component. Research results also show a significant relationship between length of stay in the program and effectiveness.
Treatment Programs in Oklahoma Prisons
In Oklahoma, treatment programs for correctional inmates have been used for a number of years. The ODOC "Program Description Guide" notes the use of treatment in many of its facilities and notes that "Substance Abuse Education" is a statewide program that provides information on the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1995). ODOC, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, also operates the "Treatment Alternatives for Drinking Drivers." (TADD). TADD is a residential treatment program designed for the chronic alcohol offender. The program lasts for 30-60 days and is a very intensive treatment, utilizing individual therapy and alcohol education (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program description guide, 1995).
Mabel Bassett Correctional Center--the state's multi-security facility
for women--has the "New Beginnings" Substance Abuse Treatment Program that
lasts thirteen weeks. Inmates are encouraged to set their own goals toward
living drug/alcohol free lives (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program
description guide, 1995). Jackie Brannon Correctional Center has developed
the "Chemical Abuse Program," a 7 week program involving "counseling, psychotherapy
and education" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program description
guide, 1995, no page number). All facilities have AA and NA meetings
available to the inmate, providing inmates a wide variety of treatment
options in order to deal with substance abuse.
Moral Reconation Therapy
This section will review Moral Reconation therapy as it has been used in various states and its implementation in Oklahoma prisons.
Moral Reconation Therapy in Various States
Moral Reconation Therapy was developed by Gregory Little and Kenneth Robinson in an effort to treat "resistant" populations, such as that found in the prison community. Little and Robinson developed the program in a private practice, then moved to implement the program into the prison setting. It was fully implemented into a correctional setting in 1985 (Little & Robinson, 1988). These "resistant" populations are believed to have lower self-esteem, an inability to delay gratification, and lower levels of moral development than the general population. According to Little and Robinson, "Moral Reconation Therapy attempts to forge a connection between moral reasoning and moral behavior" (1988, p.135).
Through a step by step program, group leaders trained in MRT set out the way an inmate looks at himself/ herself and enables the inmate to see how events of the past control the current events in his/her life. By challenging the inmate's beliefs, attitudes, and thinking, the program sets in motion the needed impetus to change. MRT techniques include "lecture, individual discussion, treatment manuals, and workbooks, and its exercises" (Little & Robinson, 1988, p. 139).
Research has been conducted on the effects of the MRT program on recidivism (see Little & Robinson, 1989, 1989a, 1989b; Little, Robinson, & Burnette, 1991). Using the Shelby County (TN) Correction Center, a county-operated prison housing 1,800 to 2,000 inmates, the authors have consistently found that the MRT program produces lower recidivism among those who complete the program.
Moral Reconation Therapy in Oklahoma Prisons
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has used the MRT program in it's facilities since 1993. The ODOC "Program Description Guide" describes the MRT program as follows:
"Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a systematic, step-by-step treatment program for treatment resistant clients. The system is designed to alter how offenders think, how they make judgements and decisions about what is right and wrong to do in situations" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1995, no page number).
Throughout the years the ODOC has implemented this program in all of it's correctional facilities, community work centers, and it's probation and parole divisions. Numerous ODOC staff--case managers, counselors, correctional officers, etc.--have been trained as MRT group leaders. They have also contracted with alcohol/drug treatment providers for specific programs--such as the Female Offender Regimented Treatment (FORT) Program located at Eddie Warrior Correctional Center in Taft, OK--where the contract calls for the use of MRT as the primary mode of treatment.
A recent study of the effects of MRT in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (Brame, et al., 1996) found that the MRT program participants who were incarcerated had lower levels recidivism and fewer misconduct reports. Probationers who completed MRT actually had a higher recidivism rate than other probationers, however. Therapeutic Communities
This section is subdivided into separate consideration of therapeutic communities in other prison systems around the country and those operating within Oklahoma.
Therapeutic Communities in Various States
The concept of the "Therapeutic Community" (TC) in an institutional setting can be traced to Maxwell Jones and the Belmont Hospital, England (Almond, 1974). The idea of the TC is that those involved in treatment live in a community-type atmosphere. The basis for the TC was that those who were patients had social deficiencies and needed the community atmosphere to strengthen ties between doctor-patient and foster support between family and outside social contacts--friends, employers, etc.
The program consisted of bi-weekly staff-patient group meetings in which staff as well as patients were able to communicate needs and voice concerns regarding any inappropriate behavior. According to Almond, the TC "...should focus on such intermediate matters such as the patients symptoms, his relations to family and work, and his daily ward life" (1974, p. 8).
In the confines of a prison setting inmates are encouraged not only to develop positive--i.e., socially acceptable--behavior, but also are encouraged to confront others whose behavior is seen as negative or anti-social in nature. The "Treatment ProtocolEffectiveness Study" (1996) describes TC's as, "long-term, intensive, self-help, highly structured residential treatment modalities for chronic hardcore drug abusers who have failed at other forms of drug abuse treatment" (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1996, no page number). Wellisch and associates set out several options for treatment of offenders in the correctional setting and TC's are seen as a viable way to deal effectively with drug offenders (Wellisch, et al., 1993). Cowles and associates reccommend the adoption of TC's in boot camp programs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Boot camp" drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review, 1995, 1995a).
According to Inciardi (1995) , the first TC developed within corrections was established in the Nevade State Prison in 1962. While numerous states and the federal system developed their own TC's in the 20 years to follow, few lasted. In addition to the few which survived, several new programs have been established in recent years.
Today's TC's are well illustrated by three successful programs. These are (1) The "Stay'n Out" program in New York, (2) the "Cornerstone" program in Oregon, and (3) the "Texas Initiative" programs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Programs in correctional settings: Focus on what works, 1996).
Therapeutic Communities in Oklahoma Prisons
TC's are used in a number of facilities operated by the ODOC and in at least one of the new private prisons holding ODOC inmates.
The "Lifeline" program was initiated at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center (JHCC) in 1988, to help those who are chemically dependent. The program is built around the TC concept (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Lifeline Program, no date).
The "Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program" (RSOTP) was started at JHCC in 1989, and was designed to treat male sex offenders. This program also is based on and designed around the TC concept (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Joesph Harp Correctional Center, Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program, no date). As of 1996, 13 of the 58 inmates who have completed the program reside in the community, and none "...have been rearrested for a sex crime" (no page number).
Key To Life (KTL), located at William S. Key Correctional Center, is a therapeutic community housed in one unit of the minimum security institution. As an intensive drug/alcohol treatment program, KTL utilizes MRT and peer counselors for the 9-12 month program.
The Earl Davis Correctional Facility is located in Holdenville, OK, and operated by Corrections Corporation of America. As a private prison, it currently contracts bed space to ODOC. At the present time, a unit in the facility is dedicated to implementing a TC--referred to as PRIDE-TC--for drug offenders and there are plans to expand the TC into other units. METHODOLOGY
Formal field research consisted of 5 visits by the researchers to BJCC and numerous telephone conversations with selected BJCC staff. The data gathering including meeting with administrators to plan and review the research process and interviews with numerous BJCC staff. Administrators at the initial meeting included the Warden, the Deputy Warden, the Warden's Assistant, Case Manager Supervisor, Director of Freedom Ranch at BJCC--the contract treatment provider--and the two Aftercare Case Managers (ACM's).
Interviews were conducted with representatives of all areas of the DOWC program, including the Director of Freedom Ranch at BJCC, teacher in the school, Chief of Security, Warden's Assistant, Case Manager Supervisor, Unit Managers, and other unit staff on Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, and the ACM's. In some cases there were contributions based on both present and past job positions, since some unit staff had been correctional officers/drill instructors and others had advanced within the Unit Management system or moved from one unit (or phase) to another.
These interviews were largely open-ended. They lasted from a few minutes to an hour in length, depending upon the quantity of information provided by the respondent. Several of the interviews were conducted with two respondents from one unit or area present.
Numerous documents relating to the DOWC were acquired and examined by the researchers. These documents included ODOC documents, newspaper articles regarding the siting, planning, and development of BJCC, and documents related to Freedom Ranch.
Top of page
This section will set out a description of the facility and the program, including its brief history. Then, the paper will present the boot camp and treatment program, and describe the aftercare component.
Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
The Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center is a mimimum security prison (with a medium security perimeter) for males operated by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Located in Alva, Ok, the prison opened in 1995. It has a capacity of approximately 300, and operates on an annual budget of over $4 million dollars. There are 109 FTE positions assigned to the facility (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, URL http://www.doc.state.ok.us/ docs/BJCC.HTM).
The DOWC is described on the ODOC World Wide Web home page as "...the first program of its kind in the nation," a specific reference to the combinations of boot camp, drug treatment, and work. (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, URL http://www.doc.state.ok.us/docs/BJCC.HTM). The first trainees at the facility were received on September 5, 1995, and on April 22, 1996, the first class--consisting of 55 inmates--was graduated (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1996 Annual Report, URL http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS
/96annual/Accomp.htm). As of September 1, 1997, there have been 206 inmates graduated from the program. Of these, 185 are currently being monitored by aftercare while the remainder--21--have completed the one-year aftercare plan.
According to the ODOC home page cited above, as of June, 1997, BJCC had a population of 318, with 54% white inmates, and 35% black inmates. Thirty-one percent of the inmates were between the ages of 21 and 30, while 37 % were between the ages of 31 and 40. Thus, over 70% of the inmates were 40 or younger. Nearly sixty percent (57.5%) were classified as non-violent, while slightly over forty percent (42.5%) were violent offenders. The largest category of offenses involve drugs, representing 21.4% of the population.
The facility consists of an adminsitration building, a Programs Building, a Dining Hall, and two housing units. The housing units "...are two story metal buildings housing 80 trainees on each floor for a capacity of 320" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 2). The open-type dorms/barracks are non-air-conditioned.
History of Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Construction on BJCC was begun in March of 1994 (Hoberock, 1994), after several years of development. During 1990, ODOC officials began planning the DOWC program (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center Drug Offender Work Camp: Program Overview, no date, p. 4). A small program, confined to one unit of William S. Key Correctional Center in Alva, OK, was begun as a pilot program in 1992. It served as an interim program until the Oklahoma legislature appropriated funding for BJCC construction (see Bittner, 1993). It was known as the "Drug Offender Work Camp." This program continued until 1994, where it was gradually phased out and Key To Life--with no boot camp--was made operational (see Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program Description Guide, 1995, no page number). The facility received its first inmates in September of 1995. DOWC: The Boot Camp and Treatment Program
This section will provide an overview of the DOWC program, and describe its various phases.
The ODOC Program Decription Guide states that the mission of the DOWC is to provide a structured, drug-free correctional environment conducive to
positive behavioral change for the inmate; to provide substance abuse
treatment for offenders; and provide offender labor services for the state,
while ensuring protection of the public, employees, and the offenders (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1995, no page number).
Similarly, the Trainee Handbook states:
The [DOWC]...is designed to focus on the youthful, first time offender with a
past history of drug abuse. The program will center around preparing the individual to re-enter society, chemical free and prepared to become a productive member. Trainees will develop self control and raise their self image through military regimention, physical exercise, daily living skill development and extensive substance abuse counseling (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Trainee Handbook, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp, 1997. p. 1).
Goals of the program are:
1. To reduce recidivism of the drug offenders.
2. To provide an alternative to lengthy incarceration for drug offenders.
3. To establish a safe, structured correctional environment conducive to
positive behavior changes. Inmates eligible for the program must meet the following criteria: (1) "male offenders between the ages of 18-35, (2) recent documented drug history through self admission, rap sheet, Judgment and Sentence or institutional misconduct, (3) no sex offenders previous or current, (4) no physical impairments preventing participation in physical training/exercise. (Modified programs are available.), (5) no psychotic behavior or current use of psychotropic drugs or history of mental illness, [and] (6) Bill Johnson Correctional Center...is a regimented, intensive, multi phase program requiring a minimum of 12 months to complete. Inmates are primarily assigned by the Department of Correcitons Assessment Unit when they meet the above criteria. Offenders may also volunteer" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 3). Additional crime and sentence related criteria for acceptance in DOWC are associated with sentence length for certain offenses or offense categories. Specifically, two standards relate to maximum and minimum sentence length. They are: (1) "Upon completion of DOWC [inmates] must be elgible for placement in a community program" and (2) [Inmates] must have sufficient time to complete one (flat) year at DOWC" (p. 3).
In addition to ODOC assignment and inmates volunteering, referrals to DOWC may be made by (1) court order, (2) parole stipulations, (3) returns from parole or certain other street-supervision programs with a technical violation or substance abuse-related law violation, and (4) returns of those who have completed DOWC and during later incarceration have a substance abuse-related misconduct (p. 3).
In summary, the DOWC is an intensive, year-long, prison drug treatment program for younger and less-criminally experienced males consisting of 4 phases, incorporating "...unit management and military regimentation within a Therapeutic Community...model" and providing inmate labor in community service projects (p. 4). The primary emphasis is on " positive behavioral change" for the inmate as well as reducing "recidivism." These results are to be achieved by (1) developing self control, (2) improving self image, and (3) becoming chemical free. Targeted inmates are those who (1) are either assigned to the program or volunteer, (2) have a history of substance abuse problems, and (3) have a sentence which permits sufficient time to complete the program and ultimately be elgible for community placement.
The following sections will describe each of the 4 DOWC phases.
Phase I: Orientation/ Boot Camp
Phase I represents the boot camp phase. "Trainees" are expected to be on this phase from 60-90 days. It consists of an initial and thorough orientation to the program and is broken down into Level I and Level II.
The first level "...begins upon arrival at DOWC with a "shock-in," [sic] haircut, initial orientation, bunk assignment, and one phone call home" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 4). Privileges are highly restricted, with trainees having no phone privileges or visits.
During the first week of the program, inmates undergo physical training evaluation, educational testing, and are given several tests--in the form of pre-tests-- related to the drug treatment component (as required by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment Services Contract, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, 1996). These tests are: the Defining Issues Test, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, Sensation-Seeking Scale, the Life Purpose Questionnaire, and the Addiction Severity Index.
The boot camp phase is generally consistent in function and structure with other boot camps in Oklahoma and elsewhere. (For a thorough description of boot camps, see Holley & Connelly, 1994; 1993; Holley & Wright, 1995; 1994. Additionally, the "References" section contains numerous other literature related to shock incarceration/boot camp programs.) Trained drill instructors (DI's) oversee and supervise all inmate activities, in cooperation with the Unit Management team. Features include uniforms, military courtesy and protocol, drill and ceremony, physical training, military bunk/locker arrangement and display, strict personal appearance and hygiene standards, and summary punishment and a variety of informal reprimands (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Trainee Handbook, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp, 1997). Housed in Unit I, trainees are awaken early--0500 hours, with "Lights Out" occurring at 2100 hours, and they have a full and and highly structured series of daily activities. However, there are some "Stand Down" times during the day and on the weekends, during which the trainee may rest and relax.
Trainees are expected to be on Level I for about 30 days. In order to move to Level II, trainees "...must pass drill and ceremony and physical training standards; complete basic classroom on sanitation, hygiene, and other basic skills; and comply with rules and unit work asignments" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 4).
"Cage Your Rage," a group therapy program developed by Cullen (1992) and designed for anger management, is now provided in Phase I. As used elsewhere in ODOC, the program consists of group meetings, and instructional videotapes and workbooks (see Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program Description Guide, 1995, no page number).
Level II components includes enhanced privileges--phone calls, visits, etc.--as well as additional work assignments and treatment programs. These trainees must work at least 30 days on the "gun gang" in community service projects outside the facility.
During this phase, inmates begin educational programming as needed, including Adult Basis Education and GED study. "Life Without A Crutch," developed by Ingraham, Bell, and Rollo (1991), intended to serve as an introduction to "recovery from addiction" and preparation for MRT, is offered at this time. This program requires a number of activities based in an accompanying workbook.
"A Map Through the Maze" will soon be offered at this level. Written by Rollo and Adams (1993), it is an orientation to incarceration, emphasizing healthy coping skills, accepting responsibility for one's actions, recovery from addiction, and preparation for releasse.
Minor rule infractions on the boot camp phase are initially dealt with by the DI on "an informal basis, i.e. physical exercise, written assignments, verbal reprimand, etc." (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Trainee Handbook, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp, 1997, p. 30). A more serious infraction involves an "Informal Reprimand Report." A Motivation Squad--a platoon kept separated from the rest of the trainees and with substantially reduced privileges--is a short term assignment used for inmates who fil to demonstratrate proper motivation or performance. At this phase--or any other phase or level--trainees may be sanctioned by being moved back to a previous phase or level. For the most serious violations, trainees are subject to the filing of a "misconduct" report and associated sanctions, including "program failure," (p. 30). Misconducts at BJCC are dealt with according to ODOC policy.
At any time during the program, trainees (and staff) are subject to Urinalysis testing (UA's). BJCC security seeks to conduct about 100 UA's per month, and routinely uses their "drug dog" for searches during visitation, at work sites, and within the facility.
Phase II: Main Treatment
Upon completion of Phase I, Level II trainees are moved to Unit II. Phase II is expected to require about 6 months. There are increased privileges associated with telephone calls, visits, canteen expenditures, and television and radio time. It is during this phase that MRT treatment begins as well as initial involvement in the TC. ODOC has continualy contracted with Freedom Ranch (Tulsa, OK) for these services since the facility opened (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment Services Contract, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, 1996). FR has 6 staff on site, including a Director, a secretary, and 4 counselors.
FR provides a minimum of 6 hours of programming, as well as offers individual sessions with counselors. Three hours of the programming involve MRT groups, where trainees move through the 12 steps, "...beginning with relatively simple tasks and exercises that progressively increase in complexity and difficulty. Steps begin with issues of honesty, trust, acceptance, and awareness, and then move toward active processes of healing damaged relationships and long term planning" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Program Description Guide, 1995, no page number). Trainees may be required to redo steps for problem attitudes and/or behavior as identified by the TC family or Unit staff. ODOC requires that groups have no more than 15 members.
And additional 3 hours of "Relapse Prevention" incorporate several learning modules, including Substance Abuse Education (Fisher, no date), relapse prevention, anger management, feelings, problem solving and decision making, communication, and stress and relaxation.
Trainees spend half of their day in programs and the other half in school (if needed) or on a work detail (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 5). FR provide both day and evening programming.
The TC is initiated at this time. All Phase II trainees living on a floor are structured as a hierarchial "family," where the intent is to "...begin transferring responsibility for behaviors from the correctional staff to the individual trainees and the unit family (p. 5). (For a detailed description of the TC, see Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Therapeutic Community Handbook: Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp, 1996.)
The TC "family" meets in the morning and in the afternoon, where attendance is required for all trainees. The meetings are highly structured, and intended to emphasize creeds (e.g., D.O.O.R. To Freedom, H.O.P.E.), rules (e.g., Cardinal, Family, and Group rules), and timely announcements (pp. 1, 43). The afternoon meeting incorporates "general discussion" and "accountability discussion" (p. 7).
The TC is designed to "...give the residents as much responsibility as possible" (p. 13). Each member is expected to sign a contract stating acceptance of rules and all imposed consequences for rule violations (p. 12). The TC incorporates family-imposed consequences--with staff approval--for inappropriate behavior as well as staff-imposed consequences (p. 11).
Trainees are expected, first and foremost, to be actively involved in self-discipline (p. 46). When the trainees fail at self discipline, graduated consequences are utilized. The "pull-up" is intended to "...raise the awareness of a brother's concern " (p. 47) by noting to the trainee any one of 60 specific concerns (pp. 47-50). Impulse control is taught by the requirement that the trainee respond to the "pull-up" with "Thank you Brother" (p. 47). Beyond the verbal "pull-up," trainees may be given a physical "pull-up" by the Expediters, such as an extra duty assignment (p. 26, 47).
"Slips" may be dropped into the 'slip box," detailing a "pull-up" situation which has been observed and about which the trainee still has "feelings" (p. 51). "They are later dealt within the encounter groups.
Four encounter groups are held during the week, at which time the "slips" are dealt with. The Accounting Department, assisted by the Expediters, hold trainees accountable for "destructive" attitudes and behavior patterns (p. 14). In these meetings, the Guardian Department serves as the supportive, caring dimension of the group (p. 14). Encounters are highly structured and regulated, with 34 specific rules which must be followed, and carefully overseen by group leaders (pp. 53, 54).
The final consequence is the "learning experience," or L.E. (p. 55). One is given when "a brother has been made aware of his inappropriate behavior through confrontations in encounter groups, and he...accepts the fact that his behavior was inappropriate..." (p. 55) Issued by the Guardian, the L.E. typically lasts for 3 days.
In order to move to Phase III, trainees must complete the 12 MRT steps, and also undergo post-testing of the Defining Issues Test, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, Sensation-Seeking Scale, and the Life Purpose Questionnaire.
Phase III: Reentry
This approximately 3-month phase on Unit III afford trainees more privileges than on Phase II, including "...minimal direct supervision by correctional staff" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 5). Inmates are expected to continue education, if needed, and maintain work assignments. The TC function is continued on this phase. Also, trainees on this Phase are expected to be mentors for trainees on Phases I and II. It is also possible to complete MRT steps 13 through 16 at this time.
Three work assignments are to be completed during this phase, as well as the individualized aftercare plan. The aftercare plan (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Aftercare and Relapse Prevention Program: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center Drug Offender Work Camp, no date) incorporates a needs assessment and a plan for community reentry, developed with the assistance of the Aftercare Case Managers (ACM's).
Upon completion of the program, formal graduation ceremonies are held. Activities include visitors, familly members, and outside guest speakers. Imates may remain at BJCC after program completion for a number of reasons, including serving as interns and mentors. At the present time, plans call for an in-house residential aftercare program. With sufficient funding, BJCC officials anticipate eventually opening a DOWC pre-release center elsewhere in Oklahoma.
Phase IV: Aftercare
The "intent [for aftercare] is to monitor and provide ongoing support and intervention in the event of relapse prior to serious violations or re-incarcerations" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Drug Offender Work Camp, Program Overview, p. 5). Integral components of aftercare include "Coordination and Tracking, Intensive Supervision as required, Transitional Programs through contract providers, Relapse Prevention, and Drug Testing" (p. 6). The two ACM's employeed by BJCC coordinate their work with probation and parole officers, other ODOC staff, and community resource providers (p. 5).
Upon completion of the DOWC program, inmates may be (1) discharged to the streets, (2) released through Probation and Parole, or (3) transferred to another ODOC facility to serve additional time. The ACM's will monitor program graduates intensively for a 90 day period, necessitated by resource limitations and for one year on a periodic basis. The aftercare plan is ideally suited for the first two categories, and less so the third. The ACM's monitor inmates in other ODOC facilities to assist in relapse prevention, intervene in "relapse staffings," and gather data on inmate behavior. Those discharging their sentences are asked to voluntarily participate in the aftercare program. Those on some supervision status--through Probation and Parole--receive the fullest extent of aftercare services (pp. 5, 6). Graduated sanctions are designed for "technical violations and minor offenses" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Aftercare and Relapse Prevention Program: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center Drug Offender Work Camp, no date, no page number).
Top of page
The DOWC represents a bold and innovative effort within ODOC to combine boot camps, MRT, and a therapeutic community to deal with offenders who have drug histories. Although its life has been brief to this point in time, there are early indications that offenders are benefitting from the program.
BJCC staff are currently in the process of implementing an evaluation model created with the assistance of these authors. The staff, from the warden on down, have demonstrated a strong commitment to the program, and are working hard to make certain it is a successful program.
DOWC staff have recognized the need for aftercare, yet struggled with its implementation. They continue to work diligently to expand their aftercare program.
Top of page
Almond, Richard. (1974). The healing community. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Benda, B.B., Toombs, N.J., & Whiteside, L. (1996). Recidivism among boot camp graduates: A comparison of drug offenders to other offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(3), 241-253.
Bittner, J.B. (1993, December 4). Alva captures work camp. Enid News & Eagle, pp. A1,A3.
Brame, R. MacKenzie, D.L., Waggoner, A.R., & Robinson, K. D. (1996, August). Moral Reconation Therapy and problem behavior in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 3, 63-84.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1996, May). A national survey of aftercare provisions for boot camp graduates . (BJS Publication No. NCJ-157664). Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1996, February). Programs in correctional settings: Focus on what works. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995, November). The effectiveness
of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. (BJS
Publication No. NCJ-157642). Washington, DC: National Justice Reference
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995, July). "Boot camp" drug treatment and aftercare intervention: An evaluation review. (BJS Publication No. NCJ-153918). Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995a, July). "Boot camp" drug treatment and aftercare intervention: An evaluation review. (BJS Publication No. NCJ-155062). Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994, November). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration. (BJS Publication No. NCJ-142462). Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994, October). Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update. (BJS Publication No. NCJ-149175). Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Camp, G.M. & Camp, C.G. (1992). The corrections yearbook--1992. South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute.
DiIulio, J.J., Jr. (1991). No escape: The future of American corrections. New York: Basic Books.
Falkin, G.P., Wexler, H.K., & Lipton, D.S. (1992). Drug treatment in state prisons. In D. R. Gerstein & H. J. Harwood (Eds.), Treating drug problems, (Vol. 2, 89-130). Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Fisher, K. (No date). Substance abuse education manual. Tulsa,
OK: Freedom Ranch.
Frank, S. (1991, October). Oklahoma camp stresses structure and discipline. Corrections Today, 53(6), 102-105.
Hoberock, B. (1994, March 10). Camp's goal: Fewer repeat drug offenders. Tulsa World, pp. 11,12.
Holley, P.D. & Connelly, M.D. (1994, August). Oklahoma's Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) program for males: Preliminary evaluation and assessment. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 1, 107-116.
Holley, P.D. & Connelly, M.D. (1993, June 30). Preliminary assessment of the Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Research Grant from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Holley, P.D. & Wright, D.E. (1995, August). Oklahoma's Regimented Inmate Discipline program for males: Its impact on recidivism. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 2, 58-70.
Holley, P.D. & Wright, D.E. (1994, September 15). Oklahoma's Regimented Inmate Discipline program for males: Its impact on recidivism. Research Grant from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Inciardi, J.A. (1995). The therapeutic community: An effective model for corrections-based drug abuse treatment. In K.C. Haas & G.A. Alpert (Eds.), The dilemma of corrections (3rd ed., 406-417). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Ingraham, L., Bell, S., & Rollo, N. (1991). Life without a crutch:
An introduction to recovery from addicition. Dallas, TX: Open, Inc.
Lipton. D.S., Falkin, G.P., & Wexler, H.K. (1992). Correctional drug treatment in the United States: An overview. In C.G. Leukefeld and F.M.Tims (Eds.). Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails (8-30). (NIDA Research Monograph No.118). Rockville, MD: NIDA.
Little, G.L. & Robinson, K.D. (1989). Effects of moral reconation therapy upon moral reasoning, life purpose, and recidivism among drug and alcohol offenders. Psychological Reports, 64, 83-90.
Little, G.L. & Robinson, K.D. (1989a). Relationship of DUI recidivism to moral reasoning, sensation seeking, and MacAndrew alcoholism scores. Psychological Reports, 65, 1171-1174.
Little, G.L. & Robinson, K.D. (1989b). Treating drunk drivers with moral reconation therapy: A one-year recidivism report. Psychological Reports, 64, 960-962.
MacKenzie, D.L. (1995). Boot camp prisons: Examining their growth and effectiveness. In K.C. Haas & G.A. Alpert (Eds.), The dilemma of corrections, (3rd ed., 396-405). Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland.
MacKenzie, D.L. & Brame, R. (1995). Moral Reconation Therapy and problems behavior in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justtice Research Consortium, 2, 104-105.
MacKenzie, D.L., Brame, R., McDowall, David, & Souryal, C. (1995). Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology, 33(3), 327-357.
MacKenzie, D.L. & Parent, D.G. (1992). Boot camp prisons for young offenders.
In J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions, (103-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MacKenzie, D.L. & Souryal, C. (1995). Inmates' attitude change during incarceration: A comparison of boot camp with traditional prison. Justice Quarterly, 12(2), 325-353.
MacKenzie, D.L. & Souryal, C. (1991). Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals. Corrections Today, 53(6), 90-92, 94-96.
Murray, D.W. (1991, June). New initiatives in drug treatment in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Federal Probation, 55(2), 35-41.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (1996, March). Treatment protocol effectiveness study. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (n.d./1997). 1996 Annual report. [WWW document]. URL http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/96annual/Accomp.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (No date). Aftercare and relapse prevention program. Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center Drug Offender Work Camp.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (n.d./1997). Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center. [WWW document]. URL http://www.doc.state.ok.us/docs/ BJCC.HTM.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (No date). Lifeline program.
Joseph Harp Correctional Center.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (No date). Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center Drug Offender Work Camp: Program overview.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1996, April 11). Residential sex offender treatment program. Joseph Harp Correctional Center.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1996, July 1) Substance abuse treatment services contract: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1996). Therapeutic community handbook: Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997, February 18). Trainee handbook: Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Charles E. "Bill" Johnson C.C. Drug Offender Work Camp.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1995). Program description guide. Oklahoma City, OK: author.
Parent, D.G. (1989, June). Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Quinlin, J.M. (1993). Carving out new territory for American corrections. Federal Probation, 57, 59-63.
Rollo, N. & Adams, L.W. (1993). A map through the maze: A guide
to surviving the criminal justice system. Dallas, TX: Open, Inc.
Salerno, A.S. (1994). Boot camps: A critique and a proposed alternative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(3/4), 147-158.
Sechrest, D.K. (1989) Prison "boot camps" do not measure up. Federal Probation, 53(3), 15-20.
Status report on boot camps. Justice Perspective, 2,(1), 1-6.
Torres, S. (1996, September). Should corrections treat or punish substance-abusing criminals? Federal Probation, 60(3), 18-23.
Wees, G. (1996, February). Shock incarceration revisted: Should the alternative become the norm? Corrections Compendium, XXI(2), 1-5.
Wellisch, J., Anglin, M.D., & Prendergast, M.L. (1993). Treatment strategies for drug-abusing women offenders. In J.A. Incairdi (Ed.)., Drug Treatment and Criminal Justice (5-29). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Top of page