Article

Treatment for adult offenders: A review of the state of the state

Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23220, USA.
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (Impact Factor: 3.14). 05/2007; 32(3):239-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We conducted a national survey of prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies to estimate the prevalence of entry into and accessibility of correctional programs and drug treatment services for adult offenders. Substance abuse education and awareness is the most prevalent form of service provided, being offered in 74% of prisons, 61% of jails, and 53% of community correctional agencies; at the same time, remedial education is the most frequently available correctional program in prisons (89%) and jails (59.5%), whereas sex offender therapy (57.2%) and intensive supervision (41.9%) dominate in community correctional programs. Most substance abuse services provided to offenders are offered through correctional programs such as intensive supervision, day reporting, vocational education, and work release, among others. Although agencies report a high frequency of providing substance abuse services, the prevalence rates are misleading because less than a quarter of the offenders in prisons and jails and less than 10% of those in community correctional agencies have daily access to these services through correctional agencies; in addition, these are predominantly drug treatment services that offer few clinical services. Given that drug-involved offenders are likely to have dependence rates that are four times greater than those among the general public, the drug treatment services and correctional programs available to offenders do not appear to be appropriate for the needs of this population. The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices survey provides a better understanding of the distribution of services and programs across prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies and allows researchers and policymakers to understand some of the gaps in services and programs that may negatively affect recidivism reduction efforts.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Faye Taxman, Jan 14, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
123 Views
  • Source
    • "treatment, fewer than 25 % of inmates with substance use conditions are treated while incarcerated (Belenko and Peugh 2005; Chandler et al. 2009; Mumola and Karberg 2006; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] 2011; Taxman et al. 2007). Access to evidence-based HIV prevention is also limited in prisons (Arriola et al. 2002; Hammett 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Despite evidence that treatment is effective in reducing recidivism among inmates with substance use problems, scarce resources mean that few of those in need of treatment actually receive it. Computerized substance abuse interventions could be used to expand access to treatment in prisons without placing an undue burden on resources. The major aim of the study was to compare treatment conditions in terms of their service utilization, skills acquisition, and treatment satisfaction. Methods The study recruited men and women with substance use disorders from 10 prisons in 4 states. In an open label clinical trial, 494 subjects were randomly assigned either to the Experimental condition, a computerized drug treatment intervention, the Therapeutic Education System (TES; n = 249), or to the Control condition, Standard Care (n = 245). Chi-square tests compared groups on categorical variables and independent samples t tests were used for interval level continuous variables. Results Initial evidence demonstrated: (1) comparable group rates of session attendance and high rates of TES module completion for experimental subjects; (2) comparable group gains in the development of coping skills; and (3) a more favorable view of TES than of Standard Care. Conclusions Collectively, these results show that a computerized intervention, such as TES, can be implemented successfully in prison. Given the barriers to the delivery of substance abuse treatment typically encountered in correctional settings, computerized interventions have the potential to fill a significant treatment gap and are particularly well suited to inmates with mild to moderate substance use disorders who often are not treated.
    Journal of Experimental Criminology 03/2014; 10(1). DOI:10.1007/s11292-013-9187-y · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Modifications in program duration are also common. The majority of prison TC programs that once lasted 12–18 months are now 6 months or less (Taxman et al. 2007). So far, the effects of such modifications on treatment outcomes remain unknown (Melnick et al. 2004; Taxman and Bouffard 2002; Welsh and Zajac 2004; Zhang et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Prison-based therapeutic community (TC) drug treatment followed by community aftercare is widely recognized as the most effective treatment paradigm for drug-dependent offenders. However, few randomized experiments have addressed this question and fewer studies have examined how interactions between treatment modality and individual characteristics may explain variations in outcomes. Methods: Using a randomized experimental design, this study examined the effects of treatment modality [TC vs. Outpatient (OP) group counseling], individual psychosocial characteristics (e.g., risk, negative affect), and interactions on reincarceration over a 3- year follow-up period. Survival analysis using Cox regression with covariates was used to analyze data obtained from 604 subjects at a specialized drug treatment prison. Results: The expected advantage of TC failed to emerge. Critical and heretofore unexamined interactions between treatment modality (TC vs. OP), inmate levels of risk, and negative effect help explain these unexpected findings. Conclusion: The superiority of prison TC to less intensive OP counseling was not supported. The effects of TC appear to be conditioned by critical responsivity factors that have received little empirical attention.
    Journal of Experimental Criminology 09/2013; Published online: 26 September 2013(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-013-9194-z#). DOI:10.1007/s11292-013-9194-z · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A substantial proportion of justice-involved individuals in the United States are currently under some form of community supervision, such as probation (Carey, 2011; Taxman, Perdoni & Harrision, 2007). National data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) indicate that over 4.2 million individuals were on probation during 2009 (Glaze, Bonczar, & Zhang, 2010), approximately 60 to 70 percent suffer from substance use disorders (SUDs) (Lurigio et al., 2003; Mumola & Bonczar, 1998; Staton-Tindall, Havens, Oser, & Burnett, 2011; Taxman, Perdoni, & Harrison 2007). Yet, few studies have examined different profiles of offenders on probation or explored whether illicit drug use patterns and criminal justice risk factors vary for different types of probationers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study estimates trajectories of illegal substance use in a sample of 251 drug-involved probationers to identify risk profiles that predict group membership and explores the impact of treatment participation across these trajectories. Trajectory analyses reveal five patterns of drug use during probation supervision. Age and the use of hard drugs are identified as the strongest predictors of involvement in illicit drug use while on probation. The effect of participation in substance use treatment varies across treatment settings and trajectory groups. Prior research has tended to treat drug abusers as a homogeneous population, but the current study findings suggest considerable heterogeneity amongst drug users involved in the criminal justice system. Identifying trajectories of drug use during supervision can help identify individuals who may be more likely to persist in drug use, can inform practice by identifying individuals in need of more intensive treatment services, and can assist in developing new drug treatment strategies.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 08/2013; 46(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.006 · 2.90 Impact Factor
Show more