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


Available from: Faye Taxman, Jan 14, 2015
1 Follower
23 Reads
  • Source
    • "Generally, less than 10% of offenders are able to access any form of substance abuse treatment services in prison (Taxman, et al., 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Access to Recovery (ATR) is a SAMHSA-funded initiative that offers a mix of clinical and supportive services for substance abuse. ATR clients choose which services will help to overcome barriers in their road to recovery, and a recovery consultant provides vouchers and helps link the client to these community resources. One of ATR’s goals was to provide services to those involved in the criminal justice system in the hopes that addressing substance abuse issues could reduce subsequent criminal behaviors. This study examines this goal by looking at recidivism among a sample of clients in one state’s ATR program who returned to the community after incarceration. Results suggest there were few differential effects of service selections on subsequent recidivism. However, there are significant differences in recidivism rates among the agencies that provided ATR services. Agencies with more resources and a focus on prisoner reentry had better recidivism outcomes than those that focus only on substance abuse services.
    International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 09/2015; DOI:10.1177/0306624X15606688 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The available range of programmes and activities for offenders is limited, similarly to the study by Taxman et al [28], in which agencies reported a high frequency of providing drug abuse services; the prevalence rates were misleading because less than a quarter of the offenders in correctional centres and less than 10% of those in community correctional agencies had daily access to these services through correctional agencies. In addition, these are predominantly drug treatment services that offered few clinical services [28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Correctional centre populations are one of the populations most at risk of contracting HIV infection for many reasons, such as unprotected sex, violence, rape and tattooing with contaminated equipment. Specific data on drug users in correctional centres is not available for the majority of countries, including South Africa. The study aimed to identify the attitudes and knowledge of key informant (KI) offender and correctional centre staff regarding drug use, health and systemic-related problems so as to facilitate the long-term planning of activities in the field of drug-use prevention and systems strengthening in correctional centres, including suggestions for the development of appropriate intervention and rehabilitation programmes. A Rapid Assessment Response (RAR) methodology was adopted which included observation, mapping of service providers (SP), KI interviews (staff and offenders) and focus groups (FGs). The study was implemented in Emthonjeni Youth Correctional Centre, Pretoria, South Africa. Fifteen KI staff participants were interviewed and 45 KI offenders. Drug use is fairly prevalent in the centre, with tobacco most commonly smoked, followed by cannabis and heroin. The banning of tobacco has also led to black-market features such as transactional sex, violence, gangsterism and smuggling in order to obtain mainly prohibited tobacco products, as well as illicit substances. HIV, health and systemic-related risk reduction within the Correctional Service sector needs to focus on measures such as improvement of staff capacity and security measures, deregulation of tobacco products and the development and implementation of comprehensive health promotion programmes.
    Harm Reduction Journal 04/2014; 11(1):11. DOI:10.1186/1477-7517-11-11 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • 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
Show more