Current Psychiatry Reports

, 15:414 | Cite as

Treating Substance Use Disorders in the Criminal Justice System

Substance Use and Related Disorders (JR McKay, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Substance Use and Related Disorders

Abstract

The large number of individuals with substance use disorders involved in the nation’s criminal justice system (CJS) represents a unique opportunity, as well as challenges, in addressing the dual concerns of public safety and public health. Unfortunately, a low proportion of those who could benefit from treatment actually receive it while involved in the CJS. This article presents a review of recent research on the effectiveness of major substance abuse treatment interventions used at different possible linkage points during criminal justice case processing, including diversion, jail, prison, and community supervision. This is followed by a discussion of key research and practice issues, including low rates of treatment access and under-utilization of medication-assisted treatment. Concluding comments discuss principles of effective treatment for offenders and identify key gaps in research and practice that need to be addressed to improve and expand provision of effective treatment for offenders.

Keywords

Criminal justice Drug treatment Substance abuse Offenders Implementation Psychiatry 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maruschak LM, Parks E. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Minton TD. Jail inmates at mid-year 2012: Statistical tables (NCJ Publication No. 241264). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mumola C, Karberg J. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. NCJ 213530. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belenko S, Peugh J. Estimating drug treatment needs among state prison inmates. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;77:269–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Chandler RK, Fletcher BW, Volkow ND. Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. JAMA. 2009;301:183–90. This article summarizes key issues related to treatment drug use disorders for offenders, documenting both the substantial need for treatment and the limited access to treatment. Using the perspective of addiction as a brain disease causing neurochemical changes in the brain, Chandler et al. propose that incorporating the brain disease model for criminal justice treatment will substantially enhance treatment effectiveness for offenders. With effective existing treatment models and principles, it is argued that improving collaboration and coordination the criminal justice and treatment systems can come together to increase access to effective treatment for offenders.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office of National Drug Control Policy. ADAM II: 2012 annual report. Washington, DC: The White House; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cartier J, Farabee D, Prendergast ML. Methamphetamine use, self-reported violent crime, and recidivism among offenders in California who abuse substances. J Interper Violence. 2006;21:435–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karberg JC, James DJ. Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates,2002 (NCJ Publication No. 209588). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abuse S, Administration MHS. Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. NSDUH Series H-44, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4713. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonczar TP, Mumola CJ. Substance abuse and treatment of adults on probation, 1995 (Publication No.NCJ-166611). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langan PA, Levin DJ. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Mitchell O, Wilson DB, MacKenzie DL. Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research. J Exp Criminol. 2007;3:353–75. Mitchell et al. examined published and unpublished studies of prison drug treatment in North America or western Europe since 1979 (n = 26 yielding 32 effect sizes). Seventeen outcomes were calculated from TC programs; ten from counseling or drug education programs (including 12-step programs); three from boot camp programs; and two from a jail-based methadone maintenance program. Eleven of the studies used randomized experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental designs. Three-quarters of the studies had outcomes that favored the treatment group over the comparison group, with an overall mean odds ratio of 1.25 (roughly equivalent to a modest reduction in recidivism from 50% to 44.5%). TC programs produced the strongest overall effect (mean odds ratio = 1.47).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A research-based guide (4th rev).Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2012. http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/podat_cj_2012.pdf. Accessed 12 Jul 2013. Recognizing that the delivery of effective addiction treatment in the criminal justice system can be much more challenging than in standard community settings, NIDA’s monograph summarizes 13 key principles for effective treatment in the CJS. Building on the original set of NIDA addiction treatment principles, this guide is based on a review of the research literature and consensus from experts in addiction research and practice. As with NIDA’s general treatment principles, some have a substantial research base, as well as being derived from what is considered effective clinical practice, but others have not been rigorously tested empirically. There is much overlap between NIDA’s general set of principles and the principles for criminal justice populations. Treatment principles unique for criminal justice populations include 1) tailoring services to fit the needs of the individual; 2) targeting criminogenic factors associated with criminal behavior; 3) incorporating treatment planning into criminal justice supervision and being sure that treatment providers are aware of correctional supervision requirements; 4) providing continuity of care for drug abusers re-entering the community from prison or jail; 5) providing a balance of rewards and sanctions to encourage prosocial behavior and treatment participation; and 6) using an integrated treatment approach for offenders with co-occurring drug abuse and mental health disorders.
  15. 15.
    Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed KB, Bray J. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Subst Abuse. 2007;28:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belenko S. The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Rev. 2000;63:833–76.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peyton E. TASC in the 21st century: A guide for practitioners and policymakers. Washington, DC: National TASC; 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belenko S, Sung H-E, Swern A, Donhauser C. Prosecutors and treatment diversion: The Brooklyn (NY) DTAP Program. In: Worrall JL, Nugent ME (eds). The changing role of the American prosecutor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hynes C, Swern A. Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison: Twenty-second annual report. Brooklyn, NY: Office of the Kings County District Attorney; 2013.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Belenko S. Drug courts. In: Leukefeld CG, Tims F, Farabee D, editors. Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues. New York: Springer; 2002. p. 301–18.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hiller ML, Belenko S, Taxman F, Young D, Perdoni M, Saum C. Measuring drug court structure and operations: Key components and beyond. Crim Justice Behav. 2010;37:933–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marlowe DB. Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Sci Pract Perspect. 2003; August; 2:4–14.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters RH, Kearns WD, Murrin MR, Dolente AS, May RL. Examining the effectiveness of in-jail substance abuse treatment. J Offender Rehabil. 1993;19:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prendergast ML, Hall EA, Wexler HK, Melnick G, Cao Y. Amity prison-based therapeutic community: 5-year outcomes. Prison J. 2004;84:36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Inciardi JA, Martin SS, Butzin CA. Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime Delinq. 2004;50:88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    • Taxman FS, Perdoni ML, Harrison LD. Drug treatment services for adult offenders: the state of the state. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:239–54. As part of NIDA’s Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies cooperative agreement, a nationally representative survey of administrators of prisons, jails, and community corrections officials was conducted. One focus of the survey was on the types of drug treatment services available for offenders and the utilization of services. Other survey questions addressed the use of evidence-based practices. To date, this has been the only national survey of treatment practices and services access in correctional facilities and systems. Taxman et al. found that there was relatively limited access to clinical treatment in prisons, jails, and community corrections agencies. For example, in prison facilities a range of 4–19 % of the inmate population was involved in various types of treatment services. For jails the range of involvement was 3–11 %, and for community corrections less than 10% participated in any type of drug treatment intervention.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiller ML, Knight K, Simpson DD. Recidivism following mandated residential substance abuse treatment for felony probationers. Prison J. 2006;86:230–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Leon G. The therapeutic community: Theory, model and method. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taxman FS. No illusion, offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision model. Criminol Public Policy. 2008;7:275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taxman FS, Thanner M. Risk, need, & responsivity: It all depends. Crime Delinq. 2006;52:28–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Belenko S, Fabrikant N, Wolff N. The long road to treatment: models of screening and admission into drug courts. Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38:1222–43.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bhati A, Roman J. Treating drug involved offenders: simulated evidence on the prospects of going to scale. J Exp Criminol. 2010;6:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    National TASC. About National TASC. http://www.nationaltasc.org/about/. Accessed 10 Aug 2013.
  34. 34.
    Anglin MD, Longshore D, Turner S. Treatment alternatives to street crime: an evaluation of five programs. Crim Justice Behav. 1999;26:168–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Belenko S, Foltz C, Lang MA, Sung H-E. Recidivism among high-risk drug felons: a longitudinal analysis following residential treatment. J Offender Rehabil. 2004;40:105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zarkin GA, Dunlap LJ, Belenko S, Dynia PAA. Benefit-cost analysis of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug Treatment Alternative to prison (DTAP) Program. Justice Res Policy. 2005;7:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Evans E, Jaffe A, Urada D, Anglin MD. Differential outcomes of court-supervised substance abuse treatment among California parolees and probationers. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012;56:539–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gardiner C. “An absolute revolving door”: an evaluation of police perception and response to proposition 36. Criminal Justice Policy Rev. 2012;23:275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Evans E, Longshore D. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: treatment clients and program types during the first year of implementation. J Psychoactive Drugs SARC Suppl. 2004;2:165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Evans E, Longshore D, Prendergast M, Urada D. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: client characteristics, treatment completion, and re-offending three years after implementation. J Psychoactive Drugs SARC Suppl. 2006;3:357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Farabee D, Hser Y, Anglin MD, Huang D. Recidivism among an early cohort of California’s Proposition 36 offenders. Criminol Public Policy. 2004;3:563–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Evans E, Huang D, Hser Y. High-risk offenders participating in court-supervised substance abuse treatment: characteristics, treatment received, and factors associated with recidivism. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2011;38:510–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Krebs CP, Brady T, Laird G. Jail-based substance user treatment: an analysis of retention. Subst Use Misuse. 2003;38:1227–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Begun AL, Rose SJ, LeBel TP. How jail partnerships can help women address substance abuse problems in preparing for community reentry. In: Stojkovic S, editor. Managing special populations in jail and prisons. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute; 2010. p. 1–29.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Begun AL, Rose SJ, LeBel TP. Intervening with women in jail around alcohol and other substance abuse during preparation for community reentry. Alcohol Treat Q. 2011;29:453–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Proctor SL, Hoffmann NG, Allison S. The effectiveness of interactive journaling in reducing recidivism among substance-dependent jail inmates. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012;56:317–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Staton-Tindall M, McNees E, Leukefeld C, Walker R, Oser C, Duvall J, et al. Treatment utilization among metropolitan and nonmetropolitan participants of corrections-based substance abuse programs reentering the community. J Soc Serv Res. 2011;37:379–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scott CK, Dennis ML. The first 90 days following release from jail: findings from the Recovery Management Checkups for Women Offenders (RMCWO) experiment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;125:110–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Welsh WN. A multi-site evaluation of prison-based TC drug treatment. Crim Justice Behav. 2007;34:1481–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Duwe G. Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: an outcome evaluation. J Exp Criminol. 2007;6:57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pelissier B, Jones N, Cadigan T. Drug treatment aftercare in the criminal justice system: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:311–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gaes GG, Flanagan TJ, Motiuk LL, Stewart L. Adult correctional treatment. In: Tonry M, Petersilia J, editors. Prisons. Crime and justice, a review of research, vol. 26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999. p. 361–426.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Belenko S, Houser K, Welsh W. Understanding the impact of drug treatment in correctional settings. In: Petersilia J, Reitz KR, editors. The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 463–91.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pelissier B, Wallace S, O’Neil JA, Gaes GG, Camp S, Rhodes W, et al. Federal prison residential drug treatment reduces substance use and arrests after release. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2001;27:315–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Koehler JA, Humphreys DK, Akoensi TD, Sánchez de Ribera O, Lösel FA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of European drug treatment programs on reoffending. Psychol Crime Law. 2013. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.804921
  56. 56.
    Hiller M, Knight K, Saum C, Simpson DD. Social functioning, treatment dropout, and recidivism of probationers mandated to a modified Therapeutic Community. Crim Justice Behav. 2006;33:738–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lattimore PK, Visher CA. The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International &The Urban Institute; 2009.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Goldkamp J. Construct validity: The importance of understanding the nature of the intervention under study. In: Piquero A, Weisburd D, editors. Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 455–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Government Accountability Office. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes (GAO Publication No.05-219). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2005.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Huddleston W, Marlowe DB. Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem solving courts in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute; 2011.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Office of Justice Programs. Defining drug courts: The key components (National Criminal Justice Reference No. NCJ 205621). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs; 2004.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review. 2001 update. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; 2001.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lowenkamp CT, Holsinger AM, Latessa EJ. Are drug courts effective: a metaanalytic review. J Community Correct. 2006;15:5–11.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    • Mitchell O, Wilson D, Eggers A, MacKenzie D. Drug court’s effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012:8. This meta-analysis updated several previous studies examining the effects of drug courts on recidivism. Mitchell et al. included 154 independent published and unpublished evaluations, of which 92 were conducted in adult drug courts. The authors concluded that adult drug courts reduce general and drug-related recidivism, and the effects remain after 3 years. The mean random effects odds ratios were 1.66 for overall recidivism and 1.70 for drug crime recidivism (both statistically significant). The average effect on overall recidivism was equivalent to a reduction from 50 % for offenders not in the drug court to 38 % for drug court participants. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wilson DB, Mitchell O, MacKenzie DL. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. J Exp Criminol. 2006;2:459–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Belenko S. The challenges of conducting research in drug treatment court settings. Subst Use Misuse. 2002;37:1635–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Friedmann PD, Taxman FS, Henderson CE. Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:267–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Taxman FS, Belenko S. Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bennett TH, Holloway K, Farrington DP. The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: a meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2008;13:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Friedmann PD, Hoskinson Jr R, Gordon M, Schwartz R, et al. Medication-Assisted Treatment in criminal justice agencies affiliated with the Criminal Justice-drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): availability, barriers and intentions. Subst Abuse. 2012;33:9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Matusow H, Dickman S, Rish J, Fong C, Dumont D, Hardin C, et al. Medication-assisted treatment in US drug courts: results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers, and attitudes. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;44:473–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    • Pearson FS, Prendergast ML, Podus D, Vazan P, Greenwell L, Hamilton Z. Meta-analyses of seven of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s principles of drug addiction treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012;43:1–11. This meta-analysis sought to determine the evidence base for a subset of NIDA’s Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment, first published in 1999 and updated in 2009. Pearson et al. reviewed studies addressing seven of the 13 NIDA principles, and found that five of them were supported by the research literature. These included 1) matching treatment to client needs; 2) addressing multiple client needs; 3) behavioral counseling interventions; 4) reassessment of treatment plans; and 5) HIV risk reduction counseling. Adequate treatment length and drug testing were not supported by the evidence.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Burdon WM, Farabee D, Prendergast ML, Messina NP, Cartier J. Prison-based therapeutic community substance abuse programs—Implementation and operational issues. Fed Probat. 2003;66:3–8.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Farabee D, Prendergast M, Cartier J, Wexler H, Knight K, Anglin MD. Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs. Prison J. 1999;79:150–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Johnson JA, Roman PM. Buprenorphine adoption in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37:307–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bartholomew NG, Joe GW, Rowan-Szal GA, Simpson DD. Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;33:193–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Saum CA, O’Connell DJ, Martin SS, Hiller ML, Bacon GA, Simpson DD. Tempest in a TC: Changing treatment providers for in-prison therapeutic communities. Crim Justice Behav. 2007;34:1168–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Amato L, Davoli M, Perucci CA, Ferriq M, Faggiano F, Mattick RP. An overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to inform clinical practice and research. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28:321–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Coviello DM, Cornishm JW, Lynch KG, Boney TY, Clark CA, Lee JD, et al. A multisite pilot study of extended-release injectable naltrexone treatment for previously opioid-dependent parolees and probationers. Subst Abuse. 2012;33:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gryczynski J, Kinlock TW, Kelly SM, O’Grady KE, Gordon MS, Schwartz RP. Opioid agonist maintenance for probationers: patient-level predictors of treatment retention, drug use, and crime. Subst Abuse. 2012;33:30–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Egli N, Pina M, Skovbo Christensen, P, Aebi M, Killias M. Effects of drug substitution programs on offending among drug addicts. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2009;3.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    • Kinlock T, Gordon M, Schwartz R, Fitzgerald T, O’Grady K. A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: results at 12 months post-release. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37:277–85. This article reports findings from the first RCT of the efficacy of methadone maintenance for prison inmates. Male inmates (n = 204) were randomly assigned to 1) counseling in prison with referral to community treatment at release; 2) counseling in prison and upon release with transfer to methadone maintenance upon release; and 3) counseling and methadone maintenance in prison, continued in the community after release. Inmates receiving counseling plus methadone in and after prison had significantly more days in community treatment were less likely to test positive for opiates or cocaine 12 months after release (although self-reported drug use was not significantly different among the three groups. There were no significant effects on recidivism, however. This initial trial demonstrated the feasibility of providing methadone maintenance in prisons, with some evidence of efficacy in several outcome measures, and suggested the importance for further testing of use of methadone and other MAT in prisons in the USA.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gordon M, Kinlock T, Couvillion K, Schwartz R, O’Grady K. A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: prediction of treatment entry and completion in prison. J Offender Rehabil. 2012;51:222–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Magura S, Lee JD, Hershberger J, Joseph H, Marsch L, Shropshire C, et al. Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: a randomized clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;99:222–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Harris A, Selling D, Luther C, Hershberger J, Brittain J, Dickman S, et al. Rates of community methadone treatment reporting at jail reentry following a methadone increased dose quality improvement effort. Subst Abuse. 2012;33:70–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Finigan M, Perkins T, Zold-Kilburn P, Parks J, Stringer M. Preliminary evaluation of extended-release naltrexone in Michigan and Missouri drug courts. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011;41:288–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Conner BT, Hampton AS, Hunter J, Urada D. Treating opioid use under California’s Proposition 36: differential outcomes by treatment modality. J Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Suppl. 2011;7:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Comer SD, Sullivan MA, Yu E, Rothenberg JL, Kleber HD, Kampman K, et al. Injectable, sustained-release Naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:210–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    McMillan GP, Lapham SC. Staff perspectives on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) in a large southwestern jail. Addict Res Theory. 2005;13:53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson; 2010.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Smith P, Gendreau P, Swartz K. Validating the principles of effective intervention: a systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Vict Offender. 2009;4:148–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice. Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections (2nd edition). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections; 2009.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of effective drug abuse treatment. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse; 1999.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Cohen TH, Kyckelhahn T. Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2006.(NCJ Publication No. 228944). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2010.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    • McKay JR. Continuing care research: what we've learned and where we're going. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36:131–45. This review of research on continuing care includes a full range of interventions through detoxification and post-treatment recovery monitoring. Studies reviewed include 10 RCTs of clients with drug dependence problems. McKay concludes that continuing care models were more effective than acute care models, although some studies did not find significant effects and there was variation in patient responses to continuing care interventions. More effective interventions were those with longer duration of clinical contact or that made greater efforts to adapt the treatment to patient needs.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Aarons GA, Hurlbert M, Horwtiz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Salomé HJ, French MT, Miller M, McLellan AT. Estimating the client costs of addiction treatment: first findings from the client drug abuse cost analysis program (Client DATCAP). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;71:195–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    McCollister KE, French MT, Prendergast M, Hall E, Sacks S. Long-term cost effectiveness of addiction treatment for criminal offenders. Justice Q. 2004;21:659–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Daley M, Love CT, Shepard DS, Petersen CB, White KL, Hall FB. Cost effectiveness of Connecticut's in-prison substance abuse treatment. J Offender Rehabil. 2004;39:69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Barnoski R, Aos S. Washington State's drug courts for adult defendants: Outcome evaluation and cost-benefit analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2003.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Logan TK, Hoyt WH, McCollister KE, French MT, Leukefeld C, Minton L. Economic evaluation of drug court: methodology, results, and policy implications. Eval Program Plan. 2004;27:381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Proctor E, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2009;36:24–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Taxman FS, Perdoni ML, Caudy M. The plight of providing appropriate substance abuse treatment services to offenders: modeling the gaps in service delivery. Vict Offenders Int J Evid -Based Res Policy Pract. 2013;8:70–93.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Belenko S. Assessing released inmates for substance-abuse related service needs. Crime Delinq. 2006;52:94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Pearson FS, Lipton DS. A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. Prison J. 1999;79:384–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations