The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMMENTS FROM THE WORKGROUPS ON FOUR DIMENSIONS OF CORRECTIONAL DRUG TREATMENT
a. Screening and Assessment
b. State of Practice of Prison-Based Drug Treatment
c. Treatment Effectiveness
d. Prisoner Reentry into Society
3. COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL SESSION
a. Research Gaps
b. Strategies for Promoting Science-Based Correctional Drug Treatment
c. General Principles of Effective Correctional Drug Treatment
4. CONCLUSION
APPENDIX: MEETING PARTICIPANTS
1. INTRODUCTION
According to some estimates, only 61 percent of state correctional facilities provide substance abuse treatment. Despite a significant infusion of federal funds to support residential substance abuse treatment in prisons, the percentage of state prisoners participating in such programs declined from 25 percent in 1991 to 10 percent in 1997. The policy shortfall is clear: Inmates with substance abuse problems may not be receiving the treatment that would reduce their drug problems and criminal behavior.
| Meeting of Researchers and Practitioners. On November 29-30, 2001, the Urban Institute and the National Institute on Drug Abuse collaborated, as part of a larger study, to convene a meeting of nationally recognized researchers and practitioners. The goal was to identify critical research gaps and strategies for linking science-based research and prison-based drug treatment. This report summarizes the comments and insights raised during the meeting. |
Why they are not getting treatment remains largely unknown. One possibility is simply a lack of political or correctional interest in providing drug treatment. But an equally plausible explanation is a lack of sufficient funding. In addition, there may be conflicting expectations, systems constraints, and philosophies. These and other possible explanations suggest that there are yet-to-be-specified roles that federal agencies might play to assist the integration of treatment into corrections.
This report emerged from a collaboration between the Urban Institute and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the goal of which was to help identify and address the unique circumstances of the criminal justice environment and the challenges posed by the integration of treatment services and a public health orientation into this environment.
To help achieve this goal, the study, funded by NIDA, included three components: (1) a literature review covering a range of issues pertaining to correctional drug treatment; (2) interviews with practitioners, such as directors of state correctional agencies or programming divisions; and (3) a meeting of researchers and practitioners to discuss issues raised from the literature review and interviews. Both the interviews and the meeting were designed to help bridge the gap between researchers and correctional practitioners and to identify key issues and solutions for which practitioners have unique insight.
For the meeting — the focus of this report — 18 nationally recognized researchers and practitioners met to discuss the following critical dimensions of prison-based drug treatment: (1) screening and assessment; (2) the state of practice of drug treatment programming in prisons, including implementation of and support for treatment; (3) drug treatment effectiveness; and (4) prisoner reentry into society. For each of these dimensions, the participants addressed, through discussions in two informal work groups, the following questions:
- Of the drug abuse treatment research currently available on (dimension 1, 2, 3, or 4), what findings are the most relevant for improving correctional drug treatment?
- Are the research findings on (dimension 1, 2, 3, or 4) being integrated into correctional drug policy and practice?
- What steps can be taken to enhance the integration of findings on (dimension 1, 2, 3, or 4) into correctional settings (e.g., innovative partnerships)?
- What are the research gaps on (dimension 1, 2, 3, or 4) that need to be addressed to improve correctional drug treatment?
- Are there general principles about (dimension 1, 2, 3, or 4) that we can use to improve correctional drug treatment?
After meeting separately, the two work groups convened to discuss the results of their meetings. On the afternoon of the second and final day of the meeting, all participants met together to discuss broad-based themes that cut across these different dimensions. Jeremy Travis, Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, was the moderator for this discussion. The focus was to identify the most critical research gaps on correctional drug treatment, strategies for promoting science-based correctional drug treatment, and principles of effective correctional drug treatment.
This report presents the results of the meeting (participants are listed in the appendix). Specifically, it summarizes how participants answered each of the five questions used to explore the four different dimensions. It then lists the comments and observations made in the afternoon of the second day of the meeting. We have edited comments where doing so clarified the meaning of participants' statements. We also have provided subheadings to help readers follow the general flow of the meeting.
We have attempted to capture the issues and points that the participants made, as opposed to incorporating information from other sources. However, in some areas, we used outside information to flesh out participant comments. For the summary of the individual work group sessions, we recorded information primarily from the group responses to specific questions, as well as from written notes and comments. Because of the group nature of the responses, we have generally not attributed responses to specific individuals. In the general discussion session, we attempted to attribute statements or sentiments to individual participants, while acknowledging that more than one person may have made similar observations. Affiliations of specific individuals are provided in the Appendix. Any misinterpretation of the comments made by particular participants, or misattributions of comments, rests solely with the authors of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for this project, Strong Science for Strong Practice, provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Contract #N01DA-1-1104. The NIDA staff provided considerable support throughout all stages of this project. Special thanks are extended to Alan Leshner, Jack Stein, Pete Delany, Bennett Fletcher, and Jane Smither Holland. Glen Fischer of the Management Assistance Corporation assisted with the ongoing contractual issues in managing the project and helped ensure the success of the meeting of practitioners and researchers. Special thanks is given for the support provided by many Urban Institute staff, including Adele Harrell, Dionne Davis, Ruth White, John Hunsaker, and Dave Williams. Finally, we extend our appreciation and thanks to the many criminal justice practitioners and researchers who provided assistance with and/or participated in various stages of this project.
Latest Research
PDF
Print this page