Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:31 pm
Time: 9:31 pm
Results for drug offender treatment
17 results foundAuthor: Hiller, Matthew L. Title: Kentucky Reentry Courts: Evaluation of the Pilot Programs Summary: As record numbers of offenders return from prison to the community each year, many policy makers and stakeholders are beginning to realize that “they all come back.” Not only do they come back, but many of them also return to the community having had little or no help for their drug and psychological problems while they were behind bars, and they are unlikely to get treatment services after they return to the community. Without treatment many of these individuals likely will return to prison. Reentry Courts represents an important step toward developing innovative programming for drug-involved offenders. In Kentucky, the Reentry Court model program that was developed combined 6-months of in-prison treatment with at least 1 year of treatment in an established Drug Court upon return to the community. A growing body of literature strongly suggests that these programs are effective independently, and that combining them might increase the effectiveness of each. Initial findings concerning the during-program performance of 6 clients admitted to the Kentucky Reentry Court pilot program were encouraging. As of November 21, 2001, 5 of the 6 clients were still active in treatment (1 had absconded). These individuals showed high levels of behavioral compliance with treatment expectations. Several were promoted to either phase 2 or phase 3 of the Drug Court, none had tested positive for and illicit drug on urine tests, none had received a new criminal charge, and most were employed; whereas, the majority were unemployed prior to entering Drug Court. Nevertheless, the Kentucky Reentry Court program was discontinued due to funding concerns, namely federal funding was not readily available to continue these efforts. For program like this to impact a large number of lives, federal funds need to be made available to expand the capacity of both corrections-based programming and Drug Courts. By doing so, it might be possible to begin to slow the revolving door that many drug-involved offenders to repeatedly recycle through the courts and corrections. In addition, to examining the preliminary outcomes of those who were admitted to the Kentucky Reentry Court program model, a substudy also was conducted for developing a Treatment Screening Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to facilitate criminal justice decision making regarding referrals to programs like Reentry Courts. The screener emphasized a number of offender attributes (like drug use severity, mental health history, motivation for treatment, criminal history, and treatment history), highlighted by Peters and Peyton (1998) as important characteristics for Drug Courts to consider when making decisions for placing individuals in rehabilitative programming. A standardized set of instruments were included in the Treatment Screening Questionnaire, including the Simple Screening Instrument, Texas Christian University Drug Screen II, Salient Factor Score, and the Desire for Help Scale from the Texas Christian University Treatment Motivation Assessment. Initial finding from pilot data collected from 39 residents of a corrections-based therapeutic community (a program that was used by some of the Reentry Court clients in this evaluation) were encouraging. Overall, residents were willing to provide detailed information on their drug use and drug use problems, mental health problems, criminal history, and treatment motivation. Their responses on the questionnaire were internally consistent, indicating high levels of reliability. Self-reported information also demonstrated a high level of agreement with information abstracted from official records, suggesting good validity. Therefore, it appears that the Treatment Screening Questionnaire may be a useful tool for helping correctional and Drug Court managers to determine who might warrant further assessment and entry into a treatment program. In conclusion, the Kentucky Reentry Court Pilot program was grounded in the literature that shows residential treatment and Drug Courts are effective for reducing recidivism and relapse among drug-involved offenders. Initial findings from analysis of during-program performance indicators showed that most of the clients admitted to the Reentry Court program were doing well in it. Therefore, additional federal monies should be made available to more thoroughly test innovative programs for helping offenders reenter and reintegrate into the community, like the one described in the current report. Details: Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, 2002. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D5F5A4FD-DA42-4E38-B204-B15593E2EA99/)/KentuckyReentryCourtEvaluationofthePilotProgramsJuly2002.pdf Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D5F5A4FD-DA42-4E38-B204-B15593E2EA99/)/KentuckyReentryCourtEvaluationofthePilotProgramsJuly2002.pdf Shelf Number: 122097 Keywords: Drug Courts (Kentucky)Drug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersPrisoner ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Hoffart, Irene Title: Calgary Drug Treatment Court: 2010 Evaluation Report Summary: The CDTC program seeks to accomplish several outcomes for its clients, for the service providers who are involved with the program and for the community as a whole. Service provider outcomes, including enhanced collaboration and communication as well as the enhanced knowledge of court processes and issues were measured and evaluated for this report. Also measured were pro-social lifestyle indicators as well as participant behavior, relapse and recidivism outcomes. This document represents a second evaluation report, summarizing information about CDTC activities from its inception up to July of 2010. The first evaluation report was produced in December of 2008 and covered the period between February 2007 and November 2008. Recommendations in the first report were directed at responding to clients’ treatment needs, defining roles and structures, clarifying screening policy and criteria, involving the community and seeking new funding. Nineteen program participants were interviewed and their perspectives were gathered regarding the functioning of the program and its effectiveness. Interviews with key program stakeholders helped reflect the perspective of those who work with CDTC on a regular basis. The interviews were used to help identify areas of strength and challenges with respect to program implementation and to gather opinions about the program’s effectiveness in achieving its goals. A total of 12 stakeholders were interviewed. The CDTC evaluation was based on multiple sources of data, was consistent with promising practices in drug court program evaluations and included both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. As all other evaluations, however, this study was subject to several limitations, such as a comparatively small sample of participants (n=31), limited follow-up information available and comparatively short follow-up period, missing client information, and dated information. In the period between January 2007 and July 13, 2010, CDTC Crown reviewed a total of 141 applications. Over the four years of program operations, the Crown has consistently accepted between 36% and 30% of the applicants, or a total of 44 out of 141 applications received. The reasons for refusing admission were grouped in 18 different categories and often there were more than one reason for Crown decision. Perceived risk to the community was the most frequently cited reasons for non-acceptance (documented in over 55% of the cases) followed by offences for commercial gains cited as the reason for refusal in 14% of the cases. At the time of this report, there were a total of 21 clients who either graduated or were still in the program (68%). Further review showed that seventeen clients (about 56%) remained in the program for a year or longer and an additional 16% were in the program for a period between 9 months and a year. Calgary’s graduation rate of 16% is on the higher end of the graduation rates elsewhere in Canada that range between 7% and 16%. One of CDTC’s objectives is efficient movement of offenders through the process as measured by reduced time from charge to treatment initiation. Presently, there is no system in place that allows CDTC to measure the time required for screening activities, and, particularly, the time between the initial charge and Crown referral to program. It is recommended that a measurement system be developed to accurately capture the time between original charge and Crown referral to the program. There are some trends indicating interaction between client retention and some client characteristics. These characteristics include client age, client gender and client ethno cultural background. Visible minority clients are the most likely group to be discharged early (57% as compared to 40% and 39% of the other groups). Caucasian clients are also more likely to graduate or remain in the program for a long period of time (62% as compared to 60% and 43% of the other ethno-cultural groups). Recommendations to increase retention and success in the program include ensuring programming reflects the needs of younger clients (i.e., more structure, physical activity and attention to relationship issues) and adding addiction treatment programs that specifically target Aboriginal or immigrant clients. The recidivism analysis demonstrated that CDTC program leads to a reduction in criminal behaviour associated with drug use such as theft, assault and trafficking. This result is particularly consistent for CDTC graduates, but is also true for some of the discharged clients, particularly those who appear to have been more engaged with the program, as demonstrated by length of time sober, but also longer program stays and positive attitudes towards program participation. Conclusive recidivism analysis is only possible with continued and long-term access to recidivism information. Information that is currently collected describing CDTC outcomes does not include treatment indicators such as knowledge about substance abuse and drug avoidance skills as well as well-being indicators such as enhanced self-esteem, mental and physical health and enhanced social skills. The specific definition of those outcomes and indicators as well as the relevant tools and measures would need to be developed collaboratively with the treatment providers. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Synergy Research Group, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FinalEvaluationReport-2010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FinalEvaluationReport-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 128327 Keywords: Drug Courts (Calgary, Canada)Drug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Hoffart, Irene Title: Calgary Drug Treatment Court: 2012 Evaluation Report Summary: Since the pilot start-up in May of 2007, the program was granted full Charity Status by Canada Revenue Agency, secured funding until March 2013 from Safe Communities and the City of Calgary and has expanded its roster of treatment agencies. The current CDTC Board of Directors includes representation from the City of Calgary, Calgary Police Services, Private-Corporate sector, Prosecution Branch of Canada, Court Manager and other Not for Profit sector organizations. This document represents a third evaluation report, summarizing information about CDTC activities from its inception up to March 2012. This document builds on the information collected in earlier evaluation reports. It describes and summarizes all evaluative information that has been collected since the inception of the program, including client documentation, client feedback, stakeholder feedback, and the Social Return on Investment Analysis (SROI). In addition to cumulative analysis, and to address specific requirements from the Safe Communities Innovation Fund (SCIF), the report also highlights 2011/2012 fiscal year program activities and results. The CDTC evaluation was based on multiple sources of data, was consistent with promising practices in drug court program evaluations and included both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. The research that was gathered on evaluation of drug courts provided the context for the development of the evaluation methodology and the analysis of the results. As all other evaluations, however, this study was subject to several limitations, such as a comparatively small sample of participants, limited follow-up information available, comparatively short follow-up period, and missing and/or dated client information. During the period between January 2007 and March 2012, CDTC Crown reviewed a total of 244 applications. Over the five years of program operation, the Crown has accepted 31% or 76 of the applications received. In the period between April 1st 2011 and March 31st 2012 the CDTC Crown reviewed 64 applications and accepted a substantially higher proportion of the applicants (n=25 or about 40%). Reasons for rejection have changed substantially in the 2011/2012 fiscal year. The applicants in that fiscal year were more likely to be rejected as a result of serious mental health issues (39% as compared to 17%), but much less likely to be rejected because they were judged to be risk to the community (36% as compared to 62% of the applicants overall). This shift in the last fiscal year is a reflection of some changes in Crown screening criteria, better clarity among referring sources as to the CDTC eligibility requirements, a larger emphasis in the program on mental health screening to ensure a good fit between participant’s needs and CDTC services, and, in general, the experience gained over time by the court team. Twenty-eight clients have been formally discharged since program start up (a rate of about 42%). The clients were generally discharged for a combination of reasons which often included multiple relapses, behaviour problems in the program, their own choice to withdraw from the program, and/or a team decision that the services did not represent a good match for the needs of the participant. Fourteen clients (21%) successfully graduated and, as of August 17 2012, 25 clients (37%) were still in the program. Of those 17 clients who were in the program after one month in the 2011/2012 fiscal year, to-date 2 have been discharged, 3 graduated, 1 remains in program in Stage I and 11 clients or almost two-thirds of all those admitted in 2011/2012 (65%) are transitioning into the community in Stage II of the program. Efforts were made to complete a comparative analysis of the CDTC retention rates to the retention rates of other Canadian Drug Courts. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a daunting task because of several significant differences among the drug courts. Specifically, the CDTC program may differ from other programs in its admission of higher risk clients and more stringent rules governing discharge and graduation. These differences could lead to lower graduation and higher discharge rates compared to other drug courts. In addition, as compared to most other programs in Canada, CDTC did not receive early Federal funding and this lack of resources may impact CDTC retention rate. Given the limitations above, it is difficult to determine precisely how CDTC retention rates compare to the retention rates in other Canadian courts. However, even with all these limitations, Calgary’s discharge rate of about 42% is lower than the rates in other courts, specifically Toronto (84%) and Vancouver (51%), but is comparable to or higher than the rates in Winnipeg (17%) and in Edmonton (39%). Most notably, Calgary’s graduation rate of 21% is on the higher end of the graduation rates compared to other drug treatment courts elsewhere in Canada that range between 7% and 16%. In general, the information presented in this report demonstrates that CDTC is valuable to the community and the clients that it serves. Some highlights are as follows: •The Social Return on Investment analysis showed that, for every dollar spent, $2.25 are created in savings to the community in the first year of program and $6.50 are created in the second year. •Over half of the program participants remained drug free and sober for a period of 6 months or longer; •Clients describe the program as life changing and the CDTC staff and court team as supportive, caring and helpful; •A comprehensive employment program is in place that provides the participants with crucial work experience as well as long-term employment opportunities. 65% of CDTC participants were employed at the time of graduation and all of these clients have been long-term unemployed at the time of their entry into the program; •The program helps clients develop long-term stability by linking them with multiple supports such as individual and family counseling, skill development programs, money management services, medical, vision and dental services and services needed to acquire necessary identification; •For the engaged participants, the length of time between relapses increases and the nature of the relapse incidents becomes less serious over time. The issue of Governance and sustainable program funding is a barrier to CDTC capacity building and ongoing progressive success in deliverables. Similar programs embedded within the criminal justice system receive better access to services and resources for their designated offender population, than CDTC does as a Not-for-Profit Organization. The evaluation shows that some challenges continue to exist for some client groups in CDTC. There is a shortage of treatment beds for women in Calgary, younger clients tend to leave the program earlier, and the program is less successful with visible minority or First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) clients than with clients of European backgrounds. Expansion to include day treatment will help address some of these concerns by providing an opportunity to have gender-specific groups, groups for FNMI participants and groups for younger clients. The Day Program will also integrate best practices from both justice and treatment paradigms in a curriculum that is trauma informed and grounded in culturally appropriate approaches. Day programming will also provide treatment opportunities designed to stop the cycle of addictions in families. Those supports may include parenting classes, helping parent participants reconnect with their children and providing programming for women with children. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Calgary Drug Treatment Corut Society, 2012. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CDTC2012_FinalEvaluationReportOctober2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CDTC2012_FinalEvaluationReportOctober2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128328 Keywords: Drug Courts (Calgary, Canada)Drug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Shearer, James Title: The prison opiate dependence treatment trial Summary: The Prison Opiate Dependence Treatment Trial (the trial) examined the treatment history and treatment outcomes for 204 heroin users in NSW prisons between January 2002 and January 2004. The trial was commissioned by the New South Wales Corrections Health Service to evaluate the introduction of naltrexone, a long-acting opioid antagonist, through a controlled comparison with the two existing treatments for heroin users: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and drug-free counselling (AOD). The randomisation of subjects to each of the three treatment groups was not successful due to a number of factors outside the control of the researchers. Principal among these was the very poor uptake of naltrexone. Only 9 out 66 (14%) subjects assigned to naltrexone actually started naltrexone treatment and ultimately only 14 subjects out of 204 (7%) started naltrexone over the entire two year study period. An intention-to-treat analysis would be inappropriate when so few designated subjects received their experimental treatment. Secondly, the improved availability of MMT and the introduction of the mixed opioid agonist/antagonist buprenorphine meant that experimental control for methadone/buprenorphine was largely lost. Finally, the availability of heroin within NSW prisons declined in line with reduced supply in the general community (Day, Topp et al. 2003). Heroin use was a principal outcome for the study. Low levels of heroin use at baseline considerably reduced the likelihood of detecting any treatment effects. For these reasons the trial ceased recruitment in July 2003 but continued follow up until January 2004. The trial was successful in recruiting and following up subjects with a 91% follow up achieved. Subjects were assessed for suitability, randomised and interviewed regarding their drug use history, prison history and other health and psychosocial outcomes. Subjects provided hair samples to be tested for opiate use and finger prick blood samples to be tested for HIV and hepatitis C antibodies. The subjects were re-interviewed at six months and provided further hair and blood samples. At twelve months, record checks were undertaken to examine treatment retention, compliance, concomitant medications and side-effects. For analytical purposes, subjects were divided into five mutually exclusive treatment exposure groups. Subjects who received naltrexone prior to their follow up interview were categorised as the naltrexone study group (n=9). Subjects who received buprenorphine were categorised as the buprenorphine group (n=39). Subjects who received MMT only were categorised as the MMT group (n=89). Subjects who received AOD counselling only were categorised as the AOD group (n=23) and finally subjects who did not receive any of these treatment were categorised as a No Treatment group (n=26). The study found very poor induction and retention rates for oral naltrexone. Only seven percent of all subjects started naltrexone over the two year study period. Among those subjects, only seven percent were retained in treatment at six-months. Six-month retention was significantly lower in the 14 subjects who started naltrexone (7%) compared to the 12 subjects who started methadone (58%) (p=0.0007). Mean days in treatment were 59 (95% CI, 32-86) for naltrexone, 100 (95% CI, 70-130) for buprenorphine and 149 (95% CI, 117-181) for methadone. While compliance to daily doses was good when subjects were receiving naltrexone (98%), most ceased naltrexone once they were released from prison even when specific arrangements were made for community dosing at no cost to the patient. This was of particular concern as overdose risk is highest post-prison release and this may be further increased if subjects have recently ceased naltrexone. No deaths or serious adverse events were noted during the study. Few side effects were noted in those subjects who received naltrexone. Most side effects were minor, including dizziness, nausea, headache, sleep disturbance and loss of appetite which resolved or were manageable. There were no other statistically significant differences in outcomes between the study groups although results were limited by the small sample sizes of the multiple comparison groups. The experience of this study was consistent with other studies of oral naltrexone in Australia and overseas. The study did not replicate the success observed among prison parolees in the US or work release programs in Singapore. The most likely reason for this was that inmates were not subject to coercion or incentives to enter and stay on naltrexone maintenance. In the absence of such incentives, opioid dependent inmates showed a preference for agonist treatment including methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance. Many inmates who achieved abstinence preferred no treatment or drug free counselling over naltrexone. The overall conclusion of the study was that poor patient acceptability and retention did not support oral naltrexone in this treatment group. The study also found relatively poor retention in subjects who started buprenorphine (n=21) due to the high proportion (20%) who were discontinued due to diversion. Diverted buprenorphine was the second most injected illicit drug (11%) after heroin (14%) at follow up. Investigation of alternate dose formulations may be warranted. Half the trial subjects did not receive any AOD counselling, mostly because they declined to attend for AOD counselling (42%) or claimed that counselling was not offered (38%). Given that subjects who received AOD counselling had improved outcomes, the underlying reasons for failure to attend or be offered AOD counselling warrant further investigation. Subjects who received no treatment of any kind had the poorest outcomes on most measures. This group was characterised by shorter sentences. New forms of depot preparations and implantable devices for both naltrexone and buprenorphine may overcome the poor treatment retention experienced in this study: however such devices remain experimental. At the conclusion of recruitment for this study, CHS withdrew funding support for oral naltrexone. We conclude from this study that treatment of heroin dependence in correctional settings using oral naltrexone is relatively ineffective because of limited attraction and poor compliance and that compliance is superior for oral methadone which is also more attractive and more effective. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2004. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical Report No. 199: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/prison-opiate-dependence-treatment-trial Year: 2004 Country: Australia URL: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/prison-opiate-dependence-treatment-trial Shelf Number: 106730 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Carns, Theresa White Title: Recidivism in Alaska’s Therapeutic Courts for Addictions and Department of Corrections Institutional Substance Abuse Programs Summary: The Judicial Council and ISER evaluated two programs for offenders with substance abuse problems: Alaska’s therapeutic courts and Department of Corrections institutional programs for incarcerated offenders. Based on the information available, the study found that the programs were promising, especially for those who completed them. This report also identifies ways to improve data collection. Suggestions for improved data collection and sharing • Agencies should improve their internal methods of data collection. Data should be entered electronically to the extent possible, in a consistent format. Agencies should collect additional data, such as information about substance abuse problems, mental health issues and socioeconomic status, all of which have been shown to be related to recidivism. • Agencies should work together to find efficient ways to reduce the burdens of collecting data, and to share data about offenders and programs. To match individuals so that agencies can share data accurately and efficiently, all agencies should begin to enter the APSIN ID number for each offender as soon as possible. • Agencies should work with treatment providers and others to assure that they meet the same high standards for data quality that the agencies set for in-house data collection. Agency staff responsible for contracted programs should assist management of the programs by providing clear descriptions of the data expected, and by frequent review of program reports. Findings about therapeutic court programs • Any participation by felons in a therapeutic court program appeared to be beneficial; all participants had lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison offenders. Graduates benefitted the most. The rearrest rate for felon graduates was about one-third lower than the comparison group, and the reconviction rate was about one-half that of the comparison offenders. • Misdemeanant success depended on graduation. The rearrest and reconviction rates for graduates were about one-third lower than those of the comparison offenders. Non-graduate misdemeanants had substantially higher rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison offenders, but the rearrest and reconviction rates for graduates and non-graduates combined were about the same as the rates for the comparison offenders. Findings about DOC institutional substance abuse programs • DOC institutional substance abuse treatment programs were most effective for those who completed them. Felons were 50% more likely to complete a program than misdemeanants, probably because it was less likely they would be transferred or released prior to completion. • Misdemeanor offenders who completed programs had the most success; their rearrest rate was about one-third lower than the comparison group and their reconviction rate was a little more than one-half that of the comparison group. Details: Anchorage: Alaska Judicial Council, 2012. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/2012programrecid.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/2012programrecid.pdf Shelf Number: 129019 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersOffender TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment Programs (Alaska) |
Author: Boles, Sharon Title: Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court Year Seven Outcome and Process Evaluation Findings Summary: The Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court (DDC) began in October 2001. The Sacramento DDC was developed as part of a system-wide reform effort to address the needs of families with substance use disorders in the child welfare system. The Sacramento DDC operates parallel to the dependency case proceedings, which are conducted on a regular family court docket. Compliance reviews and management of the recovery aspects of the case are heard by the DDC officer throughout the life of the parents' participation in the dependency drug court. Parents begin DDC services promptly to pre-empt the possibility of noncompliance of court orders regarding substance abuse treatment participation. The focus of this report includes: 1) a description of the program participants; 2) findings regarding treatment engagement, retention and completion; and 3) 12, 18, and 36 month findings regarding child safety and permanency. For this report, the 24 month findings are presented in Appendix A. For a complete description of the DDC model and programmatic components, please contact the authors for a report issued in April 2002. Details: Irvine, CA: Children and Family Futures, 2010. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132149 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WelfareDrug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Baker, Tom Title: Alcohol and other drug treatment and diversion from the Australian criminal justice system 2012-13 Summary: In the 10 years to 2012-13, the number of treatment episodes provided to clients diverted from the criminal justice system into alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment for drug or drug-related offences more than doubled, while treatment episodes for other clients increased only marginally. This bulletin assesses the nature of diversion clients referred to AOD treatment services, how they compare with non-diversion clients receiving AOD treatment, and the treatment they receive. About 1 in 4 clients had been diverted from the criminal justice system Nationally, there were 24,069 clients who had been diverted into AOD treatment, comprising 24% of all clients. Diversion clients were younger and more likely to be male than non-diversion clients, and less likely to be Indigenous Among diversion clients: - 25% were aged 10-19 compared with 11% for non-diversion clients - 80% were male compared with 67% of non-diversion clients - 12% were Indigenous compared with 15% for non-diversion clients. Among diversion clients, about 1 in 7 also received non-diversion treatment during 2012-13 While there are client data for just 1 collection year, about 1 in 7 (3,640) diversion clients also received non-diversion episodes during 2012-13 (4% of total clients). Diversion treatment episodes were about twice as likely to involve cannabis as the principal drug of concern compared with episodes for non-diversion clients Diversion episodes were most likely to be for cannabis (43% compared with 20% for non-diversion episodes). This was followed by alcohol (21% compared with 46%), amphetamines (18% compared with 13%) and heroin (7% compared with 8%). Police diversion episodes had less intensive treatment types compared with court diversion episodes Police diversion episodes were far less likely than court diversion episodes to involve counselling (21% compared with 54%) and support and case management only (1% compared with 15%) as main treatment types, and much more likely to involve information and education only (46% compared with 20%) and assessment only (31% compared with 5%). Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 125: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 133954 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Australia)Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Eurasian Harm Reduction Network Title: Overdose prevention services upon release from prison: Best practices from Scotland, Denmark, Italy and Spain Summary: This 'Fact Sheet' reports on good practice models in four European Union (EU) countries - Scotland, Denmark, Italy and Spain (more specifically, the Catalonia region) - on overdose prevention and management programs upon release from prison. Information gathered includes programme descriptions; evidence of effectiveness; functioning; and involvement of people who use drugs. A separate, complementary mapping report describing the situation in the target countries (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania) regarding overdose prevention services upon release from prisons was also produced within Workstream 3: 'Overdose prevention services upon release from prison: Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Romania'. Details: Vilnius: Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN), 2014. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://harm-reduction.org/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_best_practices_overdose_prevention.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://harm-reduction.org/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_best_practices_overdose_prevention.pdf Shelf Number: 133803 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (Europe)Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OverdosesPrisoner ReentrySubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Drake, Elizabeth K. Title: Washington's Residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: Recidivism & Cost Analysis Summary: The 2014 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to examine the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) for offenders sentenced to residential treatment in the community. Residential DOSA was created by the 2005 Legislature as an alternative to prison for offenders with substance abuse problems. When ordered by a court, an offender's sentence is reduced in exchange for completing chemical dependency treatment. When possible, WSIPP conducts benefit-cost analysis to understand the long-term impacts of policies. In addition to residential DOSA's effect on recidivism, research indicates that crime is avoided through confinement, known as "incapacitation." We cannot empirically estimate the extent to which a residential treatment facility itself incapacitates offenders. Thus, we are unable to determine the degree to which the benefits from the favorable recidivism reduction of residential DOSA would be offset by the increased costs of non-confinement. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: DOC.No. 14-12-1901: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1577/Wsipp_Washingtons-Residential-Drug-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative-Recidivism-Cost-Analysis_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1577/Wsipp_Washingtons-Residential-Drug-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative-Recidivism-Cost-Analysis_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134598 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Washington State).RecidivismResidential Treatment |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Trends in methylamphetamine availability, use and treatment, 2003-04 to 2013-14 Summary: There have been several corresponding trends in the availability, use and treatment of methylamphetamines since 2003-04. Following a decline between 2006-07 and 2009-10, there have been increases across many factors relating to methylamphetamines to 2013-14. Arrests, seizures and detections have all increased. Users are now favouring the crystal form of methylamphetamine. They are using it more frequently, and, there appear to be more new users of crystal. There are more people in treatment reporting smoking as their usual method of use for amphetamines than previously. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Drug treatment series no. 26: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552826 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552826 Shelf Number: 136970 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Offender TreatmentDrug TreatmentMethamphetamine |
Author: Rowe, Rachel Title: Evaluation Report: Vietnamese Transitions Project 2011-2012 Summary: In 2012 DAMEC completed an evaluation of the Transitions Project, which aims to prevent recidivism and reduce substance use related harms among Vietnamese ex-offenders. Results showed that Transitions significantly improved continuity of care for its participants from prison to post-release and assisted participants to reduce the number of serious problems that they faced upon returning to the community. Details: Sydney: Crossroads Social Research and Evaluation Consultancy, 2012. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 6, 2015 at: http://www.damec.org.au/resources/damec-publications/reports/vietnamese-transitions-evaluation-2011-2012?layout=table Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.damec.org.au/resources/damec-publications/reports/vietnamese-transitions-evaluation-2011-2012?layout=table Shelf Number: 137201 Keywords: Drug Offender Treatment Drug Offenders Ex-Offenders Prisoner Reentry Substance Abuse Substance Abuse Treatment Vietnamese |
Author: MacDonald, Morag Title: Literature Review: United Kingdom. Throughcare: Working in Partnership Summary: The following literature review for the Throughcare services for prisoners with problematic drug use will address the criminal justice systems of England and Wales in order to provide the context for the research that will take place both in Scotland and England. The key areas that will be addressed by the literature review are: 1. the current national drug situation 2. the structure of the prison systems to include drug use in prison settings and prison health systems 3. Organisation of existing throughcare 4. key debates and issues in current research on prisons and throughcare For the purpose of this literature review, it is proposed to use the definition of throughcare used by Fox and Khan (2005:49) as it encompasses the criminal justice system and the community: The term "Throughcare" refers to arrangements for managing the continuity of care which started in the community[added] or at an offender's first point of contact with the criminal justice system through custody, court, sentence, and beyond into resettlement. "Aftercare" is the package of support that needs to be in place after a drug-misusing offender reaches the end of a prison-based treatment programme, completes a community sentence or leaves treatment. It is not one simple, discrete process involving only treatment but includes access to additional support for issues which may include mental health, housing, managing finance, family problems, learning new skills and employment. Details: Birmingham, UK: Centre for Research into Quality, Birmingham City University, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://throughcare.eu/reports/throughcare_uk_lit_review.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://throughcare.eu/reports/throughcare_uk_lit_review.pdf Shelf Number: 138409 Keywords: AftercareCommunity PartnershipsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersThroughcareTreatment Programs |
Author: Curran, Meghan E. Title: Substance Abuse treatment Programs in Corrections: An Integrated Approach Summary: Nearly 70 percent of the offender population has a problem with substance abuse. Treatment is an important component for those individuals who struggle with substance abuse, not only to help with their addiction but also to decrease future recidivism. Despite the promising nature of research on drug abuse treatment , many offenders are not able to obtain the appropriate treatment services. In addition to the concern over lack of relevant services, there are also barriers to implementing effective treatment programs that serve the needs of the offender population. Integrated services between correctional and public health treatment agencies are recommended to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system while positively impacting offenders to achieve a break from the cycle of incarceration. This study examined factors that predict integration of services among a survey of correctional administrators. Competing values theory was the framework for this analysis due to the varying decisions criminal justice administrators face about the type of correctional programs to offer and how to integrate services with other organizations or agencies , including substance abuse treatment. A tension exists between punishing offenders and providing offenders with treatment programs , depending on administrators' views regarding the goal of corrections. Regression models tested the hypotheses about factors that affect integrated services. Organizational factors, personal characteristics of administrators, and structural factors were used to examine the degree to which services are integrated, and were found to be statistically significant. In a series of separate models examining the impact of each independent variable on integration, there were statistically significant findings for organizational culture and beliefs about crime and punishment on level of integration of services. In the multivariate models, organizational factors, personal characteristics of criminal justice administrators, and structural factors combined to result in the greatest percentage of explanation of integration of services. Despite significant findings in both the individual and nested models, the independent variables predicted small percentages of the dependent variable (1.1 percent for organizational culture, 1.3 percent for rehabilitative beliefs, 1.7 percent for traditional sanctions, and 16.9 percent when combining all three sets of independent variables) , indicating that there are many other factors impacting service integration not tested in the current study. The research has policy implications due to the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act and the subsequent move towards a health care system that provides coverage for offenders released from prison and those under community corrections. Having access to health care may help offenders obtain needed substance abuse treatment services. From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the literature in the field by using competing values theory at the level of the individual worker (criminal justice administrator). Future research should examine other factors impacting integration, such as resource availability, facility location, and barriers to treatment within the organization. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2014. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1920/8833/Curran_gmu_0883E_10528.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1920/8833/Curran_gmu_0883E_10528.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 140155 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Halstead, Imogen Title: The NSW Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program (IDATP) and Recidivism: An early look at outcomes for referrals Summary: Aim: To investigate whether referral to the Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program (IDATP) reduces re‑offending and/or returns to custody. Method: The study sample included 1,285 offenders who were released from NSW custody on or after 1 January 2013, all of whom satisfied IDATP eligibility criteria. An intention-to-treat (ITT) design was employed to protect against unobservable selection bias in program commencement and completion, with the treatment group comprising the complete sub-sample of 340 offenders who were referred to IDATP (59.4% of whom commenced treatment). Propensity score matching is used to construct matched samples of treated and untreated offenders across a range of observable characteristics related to recidivism risk. Separate matchings were constructed for offenders with follow-up periods of 3, 6, and 12 months. Rates of re-offending and/or return to custody were compared for the matched samples of treated and untreated offenders. Results: IDATP referrals were younger than the similarly eligible offenders in the comparison group, had a more extensive criminal history, and had been classified according to official risk assessment measures as being at higher risk of recidivism including for reasons related to their drug and/or alcohol use. Nonetheless, after matching on the estimated propensity score, the samples of offenders were similar across these and a broader range of observable characteristics. Although rates of re-offending and/or return-to-custody were lower for the matched treatment than matched comparison group at follow-up periods of 6 and 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in recidivism outcomes. Conclusion: The power of the statistical analyses was severely limited by the small sample of IDATP participants and the ITT research design. The power to detect a treatment impact will improve as more offenders engage with IDATP over time. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 192: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-NSW-Intensive-Drug-and-Alcohol-Treatment-Program-cjb192.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-NSW-Intensive-Drug-and-Alcohol-Treatment-Program-cjb192.pdf Shelf Number: 140441 Keywords: Alcohol Treatment Programs Drug Offender TreatmentDrug Treatment Programs Recidivism Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Young, Douglas Title: Drug Courts in Maryland: An Assessment of Drug Court Enhancements and Recent Data Trends in Eleven Adult Drug Courts Summary: Approaching the 25-year anniversary of the opening of the first drug treatment court in Miami-Dade County, drug courts continue to grow and gain attention as jurisdictions nationally look to reverse the incarceration binge of prior decades. Maryland was one of the first states to make a commitment to drug courts, and today the state Office of Problem Solving Courts (OPSC) oversees one of the most extensive networks of specialized courts in the country, including both circuit and district-court based drug court programs in the major metropolitan areas and smaller programs in rural counties in every region of the state. With funding support from the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, the Institute for Governmental Service and Research at the University of Maryland, College Park undertook the study reported here of 11 of the state's adult drug courts. Employing methods detailed below, the research had three distinct components. The first involved in-depth studies of four drug courts in Baltimore City and Carroll, Cecil, and Wicomico counties that had implemented program enhancements under BJA funding. In addition to a detailed descriptive assessment of enhancement plans and progress in implementation, program data from the Statewide Maryland Automated Record Tracking (SMART) system were gathered and analyzed to further assess drug court performance and outcomes at each site during the demonstration period. A second study component involved analyzing similar data from SMART on seven additional drug court programs in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Dorchester, Worcester, St. Mary's, and Montgomery counties. These sites were selected for inclusion by OPSC, and are representative of the diversity of drug courts in the state. Using 3 and 1/4 years of data (January 2014 through March 2015), trends in admissions, active participant census, and program completion results, along with common program elements (service referrals, participant sanctions, incentives) are assessed for each of these seven sites. Finally, a comparative analysis was done. Again drawing from the available SMART data, this narrative assessment compares and contrasts recent data and trends among the 11 drug courts on the same descriptive and performance measures listed above. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, 2015. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2017 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Shelf Number: 147455 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: The Impact of Community-Based Drug and Alcohol treatment on Re-Offending: Joint experimental statistical report from the Ministry of Justice and Public Health England. Summary: This experimental statistical report contains initial findings from a project that has linked data from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) held by Public Health England (PHE) with data on offenders held by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The aim of this report is to improve the evidence base of the links between community-based treatment for substance misuse and changes in re-offending. This ad-hoc release includes key sections on: - Characteristics associated with offending in the two-years before and after starting treatment (sections 3 and 7); - The offending profile both before and after starting treatment (section 4 and 5); - Change in offending (section 6); - Offending during prison or treatment (section 8). This report contains initial findings from analysing the final matched dataset to support policy development and is intended to demonstrate the potential utility in linking treatment and offending data. Future publications may follow as our investigations into the links between substance misuse, treatment and re-offending are expanded. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2018 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/28059/1/PHE-Community_based_drug_and_alcohol_treatment.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/28059/1/PHE-Community_based_drug_and_alcohol_treatment.pdf Shelf Number: 149139 Keywords: Alcohol Treatment Programs Community-Based ProgramsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Treatment Programs Recidivism Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE): Final Report Summary: Purpose: The multi-site evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles-beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherance to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions; treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity; tested outcomes, primarily recidivism; and estimated costs. Research Subjects: 1,504 HOPE-eligible individuals were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Most were male (81%), white (69%), and high risk (55%). On average, they were 31 years at study enrollment, with 7 prior arrests and 3.5 prior convictions. Subject characteristics varied across the sites. For example, study participants were younger at first arrest in Texas than Massachusetts (19 versus 27 years) and had more prior convictions in Massachusetts than in Arkansas and Texas (6 versus about 2). Methods: The evaluation team established procedures with each site for identifying HOPE-eligible probationers and implementing random assignment. Data collection included site visits and document review for the process evaluation, as well as analysis of fidelity data. For the outcome and cost evaluation, administrative data were collected from local and state agencies and three waves of interviews were conducted with study participants. Oral swab drug tests were administered during the second and third interviews for individuals in the community and who consented. A substudy was conducted that enlisted randomly selected subjects in a telephone component that asked subjects to call in weekly and answer a short set of questions to assess whether attitudinal changes occurred over the course of HOPE participation. Results: Implementation fidelity was good to excellent in the DFE sites, showing adherance to guidelines for warning and violation hearings, random drug testing, and responses to violations. Of the eleven metrics measured, the sites had the greatest difficulty bringing a violator to a violation hearing within 3 days of the violation, although three-quarters did have a hearing within 1 week. Overall, cooperation, prior experience with HOPE-like programs, and organizational linkages between probation and the court. Challenges in some sites included resource constraints-even with grant funding-and conflict with existing probation culture. HOPE probationers were more likely to have a violation and had more violations than PAU probationers, including more than twice as many drug-related violations accompanying the more than five-fold increase in drug testing for HOPE versus PAU probationers. HOPE probationers were less likely to miss a probation officer visit, to fail to pay their fees and fines , and to be violated for a new charge ; but were more likely to have a violation for failing to appear for court . Most sanctions for HOPE probationers were jail days; HOPE probationers were more likely to go to jail , to go more often ), and to serve more days total than PAU probationers. there was strong buy-in to the HOPE concept and implementation was facilitated by existing agency The HOPE model included treatment referral after repeated failed tests and HOPE participants were three times more likely to go to residential treatment . HOPE probationers were also referred to treatment more quickly (overall and in three sites). Drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews showed fewer positives for HOPE than PAU probationers. Recidivism outcomes were similar for the HOPE and PAU groups: 40% of HOPE versus 44% of PAU had a new arrest; 25% of HOPE versus 22% of PAU had a revocation; 49% of HOPE versus 50% of PAU had an arrest or revocation; and 28% of HOPE versus 26% of PAU had a new conviction. There was some variation in rates across sites, but the general conclusions of no differences hold with two exceptions: (1) HOPE probationers were more likely to be revoked in two sites (PAU revocation rates in those sites were about 10%.); and (2) HOPE probationers were more likely to have a new conviction in one site. Lognormal survival models of time to recidivism events confirm the bivariate findings, but revealed one additional finding-HOPE probationers had longer times to revocation in one site. Cost analyses estimated costs of intake, warning hearings, staffing meetings, office visits, drug tests, violation hearnings, arrests, state and county corrections, and residential treatment. Six-month median costs were significantly higher for HOPE than PAU overall and in four sites and mean costs were higher overall and in three sites. Twelve-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in three sites. Twenty-four-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in one site. Cost differences were driven by treatment and incarceration costs. Conclusions: Four sites that differed in organizational structures and populations successfully implemented HOPE programs-holding probationers accountable to their conditions of supervision and reducing drug use. Overall, HOPE did not reduce recidivism, as measured by arrest, revocation, and new conviction. More jail days, more residential treatment, and similar (or higher) recidivism resulted in higher (although not always significantly higher) costs for HOPE compared with PAU. PAU context is important as sites consider whether to implement HOPE or similar programs based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles. PAU revocation rates were low (9% and 13%) in two sites- suggesting limited ability to reduce revocations and that sites with low PAU revocation rates should consider whether to implement procedures to mitigate any potential increases in revocations that would accompany the increased surveillance of HOPE. In at least two sites, revocation could yield only short prison stays (90 days)-suggesting limited opportunities for "prison bed savings" even if revocations were lower with HOPE and a smaller incentive for individuals to comply. PAU was based at least somewhat on Risk-Needs-Response principles in at least two sites-suggesting an additional consideration with respect to the integration of HOPE with PAU. In addition, in one site, probation could use short jail stays on their authority (and did for PAU cases)-suggesting that a HOPE judge was not necessary to enforce conditions. Thus, the similar outcomes may hinge on the "compared to what" aspect of any evalution-in that findings suggest that HOPE worked as well as but not better than PAU. However, given the consistency of findings across four sites that differed in the administration of PAU, there is little to support a conclusion that HOPE or HOPE-like programs will produce substantial improvements over PAU when implemented widely. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Shelf Number: 151019 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersProject HopeRecidivismRevocations |