The Plight of Providing Appropriate Substance Abuse Treatment Services to Offenders: Modeling the Gaps in Service Delivery

Abstract

Using data from the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey, estimates of offenders participating in drug treatment services were generated. Existing drug treatment programs have a capacity to serve around 10% of offenders. The majority of available services are alcohol and drug education and group counseling, which are suited for people with low-threshold substance use disorders. Yet a third of the offenders are reported to have a severe disorder (dependency) requiring more intensive structured services. Offenders in prison and jail are more likely to have access to treatment services compared to offenders in the community. Regardless of the correctional setting, only a small portion of the offender population receives the appropriate level of treatment. The current delivery system is inadequate to reduce the risk of recidivism. Using the risk, need, and responsivity framework to address the adequacy of dealing with drug-involved offenders, the current service delivery does not embrace this model. An effective correctional system should not only expand treatment capacity but also provide appropriate services given the needs of offenders. The composition of the current system demands attention to providing more intensive services to effectively use resources and to focus on risk reduction strategies.

Keywords:

• criminal justice
• substance abuse
• drug treatment services for adult offenders
• participation rates
• treatment needs

Acknowledgments

This study was funded under a cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH/NIDA) to George Mason University (Grant U01 DA016213-01, Action Research to Advance Drug Treatment in the CJS). The funding for this cooperative agreement was supplemented by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors acknowledge the collaborative contributions by federal staff from NIDA, the Coordinating Center (George Mason University), and nine Research Center grantees of the NIH/NIDA CJ-DATS 1 Cooperative. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIH/NIDA or other federal agencies or any other participants in CJ-DATS. We thank Stephanie Maass for her assistance with the tables for this paper.

Notes

1. For a discussion on juvenile justice settings, see Young, Dembo, & Henderson (2007).

2. When respondents indicated multiple durations for a single program, we used the response indicating the shorter duration.

3. The count of services in each case was also factored into this process. If a facility reported that they provide four or more services, the threshold value was set at three. However, when the facility reported three services, the criteria for determining phased programming was set at a minimum of two identical values; when the facility reported two services, the criteria was at least one identical value.