Drug abuse is illegal and drug abusers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and violence. Society often imprisons drug abusers to protect the public and deter further drug use. Yet, within 3 years of release from prison, approximately two-thirds of all offenders, including drug offenders, are rearrested for a new offense, one-half are convicted of a new crime, and one-half are reincarcerated for a new crime or a parole violation (Langan and Levin, 2002). Approximately 85 percent of drug-abusing offenders return to drug use within 1 year of release from prison, and 95 percent return to drug use within 3 years (e.g., Martin et al., 1999). Providing drug abuse treatment within prison typically reduces criminal recidivism rates by only about 10 percentage points (e.g., Gendreau et al., 2001; Pearson and Lipton, 1999). Moreover, in the absence of followup treatment in the community, drug use outcomes are often indistinguishable between offenders who attended in-prison drug abuse treatment and those who received no treatment in prison at all (e.g., Marlowe, 2002; Martin et al., 1999).

Drug abuse treatment in prison does, however, confer limited, short-term benefits. Studies indicate that in-prison treatment is associated with fewer disciplinary infractions by inmates and reduced absenteeism by correctional staff (Prendergast et al., 2001). More importantly, it increases the likelihood that an inmate will enter drug abuse treatment after release from prison (Martin et al., 1999). Possibly, in-prison services enhance inmates' motivation for change or prepare them to use drug abuse treatment services once they are in the community or in a transitional-release setting.

Intermediate-sanction programs attempt to reduce drug use and criminal activity, as well as reduce costs, by reducing the emphasis on incarceration and instituting close surveillance of drug-abusing offenders in the community. In many of these programs, specially trained probation or parole officers with light caseloads may monitor offenders' compliance with treatment, make surprise home visits, demand spot-check urine samples, phone-monitor compliance with home curfews or house arrest, or interview employers, friends, and relatives about offenders' behavior.

Unfortunately, community-based intermediate-sanction programs have had little impact. Approximately 50 to 70 percent of probationers and parolees fail to comply with their release conditions, including drug testing, attendance at drug treatment, and avoidance of criminal activity (e.g., Taxman, 1999a). Moreover, no incremental benefits are obtained from intensive supervised probation and parole programs, electronic monitoring, boot camps, or house arrest (e.g., Gendreau et al., 2001; Taxman, 1999b). Enhanced monitoring of offenders in these programs often leads to a greater detection of infractions and therefore, paradoxically, to seemingly worse outcomes.

In practice, intermediate sanctions typically have been administered in isolation from treatment, with an emphasis on monitoring and sanctioning at the expense of potential rehabilitative functions. When they have been administered in conjunction with treatment, they have generally produced an average of a 10 percentage-point reduction in recidivism (e.g., Gendreau et al., 2001), equivalent to what is commonly obtained from prison-based treatment programs.