Improve Recovery Support for People in the Criminal Justice System

Return to ...

---

Brief Description

Overview

Research consistently demonstrates a strong connection between criminal activity and substance abuse (Chaiken 1986; Inciardi 1979; Johnson et al. 1985). Eighty-four percent of State prison inmates who expected to be released in 1999 were involved with alcohol or illicit drugs at the time of their offense; 45 percent reported that they were under the influence when they committed their crime; and 21 percent indicated that they committed their offense for money to buy drugs (Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP 2003]). Data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program indicate that in 2000, 64 percent of male arrestees tested positive for at least one of five illicit drugs (cocaine, opioids, marijuana, methamphetamines, and PCP). Additionally, 57 percent reported binge drinking in the 30 days prior to arrest, and 36 percent reported heavy drinking (Taylor et al. 2001).

The consequences of crime related to substance abuse are substantial. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1999 alone, 12,658 homicides—4.5 percent of all homicides for that year—were drug related (Dorsey et al. 1999). The emotional costs to people with substance use disorders, their families, and the victims of their crimes are immeasurable. The ONDCP estimates that the total crime-related costs of drug abuse were more than $100 billion in 2000 (ONDCP 2001).

The devastating emotional and financial costs of drug-related crimes have led to a number of strategies to break the link between drugs and crime, including stricter drug laws, “three strikes and you're out” legislation, increased surveillance, mandatory sentencing laws, and severe penalties for drunk drivers, to name just a few. These approaches have had mixed results, and opinions vary on their usefulness.

One consistent research finding is that involvement in substance abuse treatment reduces recidivism (a tendency to return to criminal habits) for offenders who use drugs (Anglin and Hser 1990; Harwood et al. 1988; Hubbard et al. 1984, 1989; Knight et al. 1999a ; Martin et al. 1999; McLellan et al. 1983; Wexler et al. 1988, 1999a ; Wisdom 1999). For example, when researchers conducted followup studies of clients treated through comprehensive treatment demonstration programs funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), they found substantial reductions in criminal activity, including a 64-percent decrease in arrests (Wisdom 1999). In part because of the reduced criminal activity associated with substance abuse treatment for offenders, treatment has also been found to be cost-effective.

 

In response to research demonstrating the success of treatment in reducing criminal activity as well as the cost benefits of such treatment, policymakers over the past two decades have implemented a wide variety of strategies at the Federal, State, and local levels. These initiatives are aimed at improving the availability and quality of treatment for offenders. Drug Courts—courts with special unified dockets for individuals charged with crimes who are drug or alcohol involved—serve to divert offenders with substance use disorders away from the criminal justice system into a supervised treatment plan or to incorporate a coerced treatment plan as part of a judicial sentence. Other programs have been established for people with special needs, including individuals with co-occurring mental disorders. At the same time, other initiatives have increased funding for people already in prisons and jails. Examples of such initiatives include

• Project REFORM and later Project RECOVERY. These programs, funded in the late 1980s by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and in the early 1990s by CSAT, provided technical assistance to 20 States in planning and developing substance abuse programming for prisoners with substance abuse problems (Wexler 1995).
• Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program. This program funds States seeking to develop comprehensive approaches to treatment for offenders who abuse substances, including intensive programs for inmates and relapse prevention training. Further information is available at www.cfda.gov.
• The National Drug Control Strategy, prepared annually by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). This program has encouraged the development of treatment and rehabilitation services for offenders who use drugs (e.g., Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities, formerly Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime; drug court programs; prison treatment programs). For further information, go to www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/.
• The BJA, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Formerly known as the Drug Courts Program Office, established to administer the drug court grant program, the BJA provides financial and technical assistance, training, and programmatic guidance for drug courts throughout the country. BJA offers grants that enable communities to develop, implement, or improve drug courts. Information is available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/.
• The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative.In conjunction with several Federal partners, the U.S. Department of Justice is spearheading this initiative to provide funding to promote successful reintegration of serious, high-risk offenders into the community. The Initiative seeks to address all obstacles to successful reentry, including substance abuse. Information is available online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/learn.html.

Tools and Resources

Solutions and Tools focused on this objective.

Promising Practices and Case Studies

Examples from communities that have implemented tools focused on this objective

Scorecard Building

Possible Objective Details

Possible Measures

Actions to Take

Actions for Coalitions

Actions for Individuals