Substance Abuse Treatment Programs in the Criminal Justice System

Three Major Types of Substance Treatment Programs for Offenders:

• Community-Based Diversion Programs. Programs provided to offenders in the community in lieu of prison or a jail sentence.
• In-Prison Programs. Programs provided to offenders while in state prison.
• Parolee Programs. Programs provided to parolees in the community, mostly on a voluntary basis, upon release from prison.

Proposition 36 Programs

Overview. Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) changed state law so that certain adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs are sentenced to participate in drug treatment and supervision in the community rather than being sentenced to prison or jail...

Federal Corrections Reports

Find and read reports regarding Federal Corrections; ranging in subject from Capitol Punishment, to Family, Leadership, to Technology and much more...  

Continue Reading...

No More Cell Phones

Editor’s Note: This article was reprinted from the Winter 2005 edition of TechBeat, the quarterly news magazine of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, an NIJ program. Analyses of test results do not represent product approval or endorsement by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; or Aspen Systems Corp. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Assessing the Role of Neuropsychological Functioning in Inmates’ Treatment Response

Introduction:

One of the most pressing issues within corrections today is the presence of inmates who are unresponsive to authority, repeatedly violate institutional rules, victimize within the institution, and are responsible for high post-release recidivism rates (Corrections Program Office, 1999). These same inmates, whether predatory or impulsive, often show poor decision making skills and lack behavioral self regulation. And importantly, they tend not to respond to conventional treatments in spite of their greater need for intervention. Yet, few correctional facilities have the knowledge or resources to attempt to more effectively treat these inmates given that the supportive research is lacking. Many triage them into 23-hour segregation units to minimize the safety concerns they pose and to avoid consuming scarce treatment resources on a population that does not respond to conventional approaches. Research suggests that a significant number of these inmates have psychopathic characteristics that further complicate treatment efforts and worsen their post-release outcomes. In response to the inability to effectively treat these inmates, several states screen for psychopathy to exclude them from treatment in an effort to avoid waste of precious resources on those who are not likely to respond favorably. For example, some states disqualify drug abusing offenders with high scores on the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) (Hare, 1991) from treatment programs. Overall, there are few concerted attempts to treat these inmates, and most efforts have not fared well (Hare, 1999). Correctional administrators see clear public safety benefits to being able to accurately identify these inmates and more effectively direct treatment resources. In the absence of a thorough understanding of what underlies inmates’ persistent misconduct and treatment resistance, we will continue to fail to reach this very important subgroup, which is responsible for the majority of serious, violent crimes in our communities.