Skip navigation

Behind Bars II - Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population, CASA, 2010

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Behind Bars II:

Substance Abuse and America’s
Prison Population

February 2010

Board of Directors
Lee C. Bollinger
President, Columbia University

Bruce E. Mosler
Chairman and CEO, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

Ursula M. Burns
CEO, Xerox Corporation

Manuel T. Pacheco, Ph.D.
President Emeritus, University of Arizona and
University of Missouri System

Columba Bush
Former First Lady of Florida
Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
Chairman and President, CASA

Joseph J. Plumeri II
Chairman and CEO,
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company
Jim Ramstad

Kenneth I. Chenault
Chairman and CEO, American Express Company

Shari E. Redstone
President, National Amusements, Inc.

Peter R. Dolan
Victor F. Ganzi
Chairman of the Board PGA Tour
Donald R. Keough
Chairman of the Board, Allen and
Company Incorporated
(Former President of The Coca-Cola Company)

E. John Rosenwald, Jr.
Vice Chairman Emeritus, J.P.Morgan
Michael I. Roth
Chairman and CEO, The Interpublic Group
of Companies, Inc.
Michael P. Schulhof
Chairman, GTI Group LLC

David A. Kessler, M.D.
Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D.
CEO, Executive Publisher, Science, American
Association for the Advancement of Science
Rev. Edward A. Malloy, CSC
President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
President Emeritus, Morehouse School of Medicine
John J. Sweeney
Clyde C. Tuggle
Senior Vice President, Global Public Affairs &
Communications, The Coca-Cola Company

Doug Morris
Chairman and CEO, Universal Music Group

Directors Emeritus

James E. Burke (1992-1997)
Jamie Lee Curtis (2001-2009)
Jamie Dimon (1995-2009)
Mary Fisher (1996-2005)
Betty Ford (1992-1998)
Douglas A. Fraser (1992-2003)
Barbara C. Jordan (1992-1996)
Leo-Arthur Kelmenson (1998-2006)

LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S. (1992-2001)
Nancy Reagan (1995-2000)
Linda Johnson Rice (1992-1996)
George Rupp, Ph.D. (1993-2002)
Michael I. Sovern (1992-1993)
Frank G. Wells (1992-1994)
Michael A. Wiener (1997-2009)

Copyright ©2010. All rights reserved. May not be used or reproduced without the express written permission of The National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Table of Contents
Foreword and Accompanying Statement .......................................................................................... i
I. Introduction and Executive Summary ...........................................................................................1
Substance-Involved Inmates on the Rise ...................................................................................2
Alcohol and Other Drug Use Is Implicated in all Types of Crime ......................................2
Alcohol Plays a Dominant Role; Few Incarcerated for Marijuana Possession Only ..........2
Tobacco Use High Among Inmates.....................................................................................2
Arrests, Convictions, Sentencing and Recidivism.....................................................................3
Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders.............................................................................3
Income, Education, Age and Family History.............................................................................3
Juvenile or Youthful Offenders .................................................................................................4
Children of Inmates....................................................................................................................4
The Role of Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................4
The Treatment Gap ....................................................................................................................4
Reentry of Substance-Involved Inmates ....................................................................................5
Components of Effective Treatment..........................................................................................5
Overcoming Barriers to Intervention and Treatment.................................................................6
Recommendations and Next Steps.............................................................................................6
II. Substance-Involved Inmates on the Rise ......................................................................................9
Substance-Involved Inmate Population Continues to Rise......................................................10
Types of Substance-Involved Inmates ...............................................................................10
Substance Involvement by Type of Crime.........................................................................12
The Dominant Role of Alcohol..........................................................................................13
The Role of Illicit Drugs ....................................................................................................13
Non-Substance Involved Inmates ......................................................................................14
Tobacco Use.............................................................................................................................14
III. Arrests, Convictions, Sentencing and Recidivism ....................................................................15
Total Arrests Down, Drug Law Arrests Up .............................................................................15
Federal Arrests Up Overall and for Drug Law Violations and ‘Other’ Offenses..............16
State and Local Arrests Down Overall but Up for Drug Law Violations..........................17
Convictions Up Overall ...........................................................................................................18
Federal Drug Law Convictions Up ....................................................................................18
State Drug Law Convictions Down ...................................................................................18
Sentencing Up Overall.............................................................................................................18
Federal Prison Sentences for Drug Law Violations Up.....................................................18
State Prison and Local Jail Sentences for Drug Law Violations Up .................................19
Re-Incarceration Down but Still High, Particularly among Substance-Involved Offenders...19
Juvenile Delinquency, Substance Use and Adult Recidivism ...........................................20
IV. Profiles of Substance-Involved Inmates ....................................................................................23
Characteristics of Substance-Involved Inmates .......................................................................24
Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) at Epidemic Proportions ....................................................25
High Rates of Mental Health Disorders...................................................................................26

Most Minorities Over-Represented in Inmate Population .......................................................27
Blacks and Hispanics Have Lower Rates of Substance Use and Mental Health
Disorders Than Whites and Native Americans............................................................28
Females Inmates Have Higher Rates of Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders
Than Male Inmates ......................................................................................................30
Juvenile or Youthful Inmates at High Risk..............................................................................32
Substance-Involved Inmates Are Parents to More Than 2.2 Million Minor Children ............34
Percent of Inmates with HIV/AIDS Declining ........................................................................35
Hepatitis C a Significant Problem among Inmates ..................................................................35
Inmates with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Rarely Diagnosed .........................36
Veterans in the Criminal Justice System .................................................................................36
Substance-Involved Multiple Recidivists ................................................................................37
V. The Treatment Gap ......................................................................................................................39
Few Inmates with Substance Use Disorders Receive Treatment.............................................40
Women Likelier to Receive Treatment Than Men ............................................................41
Whites and Native Americans Likelier to Receive Treatment Than Blacks
and Hispanics ...............................................................................................................41
Most Treatment Services Offered Are Not Evidence-Based...................................................42
Limited Availability of Highly Trained Staff ....................................................................43
Treatment Duration Makes a Difference ...........................................................................44
Few Inmates Have Access to Pharmacological Therapy...................................................45
Tobacco Addiction Largely Untreated...............................................................................46
Women Need Tailored Treatment .....................................................................................47
Few Receive Treatment in Specialized Settings......................................................................48
Treatment for Co-Occurring Disorders....................................................................................49
Mental Health Treatment Limited .....................................................................................49
Progress in Addressing HIV/AIDS....................................................................................50
Most Facilities Address Hepatitis C ..................................................................................50
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Rarely Addressed...........................................51
Special Problems of Veterans ............................................................................................51
Other Components of Effective Treatment..............................................................................51
Less Education and Training Available to Inmates ...........................................................52
Increased Participation in Religious and Spiritually-Based Programs ..............................53
Random Drug Testing........................................................................................................53
Some Inmates Without Substance Use Disorders Receive Treatment and
Adjunct Services ..........................................................................................................54
Practice Guidelines Are Available for Addiction Treatment in the Correctional System .......54
VI. Reentry of Substance-Involved Inmates....................................................................................57
The Profile of Released Inmates ..............................................................................................58
Conditionally Released Offenders Have High Rates of Substance Misuse.......................58
Conditionally Released Offenders Have High Rates of SUDs..........................................59
Conditionally Released Offenders with SUDs Report Poor Health ..................................59
Conditionally Released Offenders with SUDs Likelier to be Young and Male ................61
SUDs Most Prevalent among Black Conditionally Released Offenders ...........................61
Few Conditionally Released Offenders with SUDs are Married.......................................62
Conditionally Released Offenders with SUDs are Likely to be Unemployed...................62

Conditionally Released Offenders with SUDs are Poorly Educated .................................62
Availability of Aftercare ..........................................................................................................63
Insurance Coverage for Treatment for Released Offenders ....................................................65
Components of Effective Aftercare .........................................................................................65
Community Supervision ....................................................................................................65
Integrated Services.............................................................................................................66
Case Management..............................................................................................................66
Graduated Sanctions ..........................................................................................................66
Training of Probation and Parole Officers.........................................................................67
Best Practices in Reentry .........................................................................................................68
California Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare.............................................................68
Delaware Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare..............................................................68
The Sheridan National Model Drug Prison and Reentry Program (Illinois) .....................69
The Second Chance Act...........................................................................................................70
VII. Overcoming Barriers to Intervention and Treatment............................................................71
Barriers to Intervention and Treatment for Substance-Involved Offenders ............................72
Mandatory Sentencing .......................................................................................................72
Lack of Clear, Legal Mandate to Provide Treatment ........................................................73
Economic Interests in Prison Expansion............................................................................75
Attitudes about Addiction and Justice ...............................................................................75
Overcoming Barriers to Intervention and Treatment for Substance-Involved Offenders .......77
Training Criminal Justice Personnel..................................................................................77
Early Detection ..................................................................................................................78
Treatment and Aftercare ....................................................................................................78
Alternatives to Incarceration..............................................................................................79
Education, Training and Employment ...............................................................................82
Costs and Benefits of Treatment..............................................................................................83
VIII. Recommendations for Policy and Practice ............................................................................85
Appendix A - Data Analysis Methodology.......................................................................................89
Appendix B - Proposed Guidelines for Providing Addiction Treatment in Prisons and Jails ...97
Notes ..................................................................................................................................................101
Bibliography .....................................................................................................................................120

Foreword and Accompanying Statement by
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President
Consider these facts:
•

We in the United States, though only five
percent of the world’s population, consume
two-thirds of the world’s illegal drugs.

•

We in the United States, though only five
percent of the world’s population, incarcerate
25 percent of the world’s prisoners.

It is no coincidence that of the 2.3 million inmates
in U.S. prisons, 65 percent--1.5 million--meet the
DSM-IV medical criteria for alcohol or other
drug abuse and addiction. Another 20 percent-458,000--even though they don’t meet the DSMIV medical criteria for alcohol and other drug
abuse and addiction nevertheless were substance
involved; i.e., were under the influence of alcohol
or other drugs at the time of their offense, stole
money to buy drugs, are substance abusers,
violated the alcohol or drug laws, or share some
combination of these characteristics.
This report, Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse
and America’s Prison Population, uncovers these
troubling facts and, even more disturbingly, finds
that the situation has been getting worse since
The National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University issued its
first report on this subject, Behind Bars, just over
a decade ago.
Between 1996 and 2006, as the U.S. population
rose by 12 percent, the number of adults
incarcerated rose by 33 percent to 2.3 million
inmates, and the number of inmates who were
substance involved shot up by 43 percent to 1.9
million inmates.
This new report constitutes the most exhaustive
analysis ever undertaken to identify the extent to
which alcohol and other drugs are implicated in
the crimes and incarceration of America’s prison
population. This report, following more than a
decade after CASA’s initial analysis, finds that
despite greater recognition of the problem and

Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP), which
avoid the high cost of incarceration.
Incarceration costs per state inmate per year
average $25,144 but can exceed $65,000. The
National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates a
savings of $12 in reduced substance-related crime
and criminal justice and health care costs for
every dollar spent on treatment.

potential solutions, we have allowed the
population of substance-involved inmates
crowding our prisons and jails--and the related
costs and crimes--to increase.
Skyrocketing corrections and Medicaid costs are
bankrupting states at a time of serious fiscal and
economic crisis. In 2005, federal, state and local
governments spent $74 billion on incarceration,
court proceedings, probation and parole for
substance-involved adult and juvenile offenders.
In contrast, these governments spent less than one
percent of that amount--$632 million--on
prevention and treatment for such offenders.
Only 11 percent of inmates with substance use
disorders receive any type of treatment during
incarceration; few of those receive evidencebased care. Without treatment, the odds are that
substance-involved offenders will end up back in
prison.

This report sets out steps we can take to reduce
crime and the taxpayer costs of prisons by
addressing treatment needs of offenders while
holding them accountable for their crimes. We
provide treatment for other chronic disease like
hypertension and diabetes. We should do so for
the disease of addiction where treatment offers
the added benefits of significant reductions in
crime and incarceration costs. What is required is
for public officials to use the currency of common
sense instead of squandering taxpayer dollars to
build more and more prisons in order to
incarcerate men and women whose core problem
is alcohol and other drug abuse and addiction.

The tragedy is that we know how to stop spinning
this costly and inhumane revolving door. It starts
with acknowledging the fact that addiction is a
disease for which evidence-based prevention and
treatment programs exist and that these programs
can be administered effectively through the
criminal justice system. Providing treatment and
training to inmates and employing treatment
based alternatives to incarceration through drug
courts or prosecutors both saves taxpayer dollars
and reduces crime.

Susan E. Foster, MSW, CASA's Vice President
and Director of Policy Research and Analysis,
was the principal investigator and staff director
for this effort. The data analysis was conducted
by CASA’s Substance Abuse and Data Analysis
Center (SADACSM), headed by Roger Vaughan,
DrPH, CASA Fellow and Professor of Clinical
Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics,
Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia
University, and associate editor for statistics and
evaluation for the American Journal of Public
Health. He was assisted by Elizabeth Peters and
Sarah Tsai. Others who worked on the project
are: CASA consultants, Hung-En Sung, PhD,
Associate Professor, Department of Criminal
Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and
Linda Richter, PhD; Sara Blachman; Akiyo
Kodera; Nina Lei; CASA's librarian David Man,
PhD, MLS; and library research specialist
Barbara Kurzweil. Jennie Hauser managed the
bibliographic database and Jane Carlson handled
administrative details.

If all inmates with substance use disorders who
are not receiving treatment were provided
evidence-based treatment and aftercare, we would
break even on this investment in one year if just
over 10 percent of those receiving such services
remained substance and crime free and employed.
For each succeeding year that these inmates
remained substance and crime free and employed,
the nation would reap an economic benefit of
$90,953 per inmate in reduced crime, lower
arrest, prosecution, incarceration and health care
costs, and economic benefits from employment.
That’s a return on investment that would satisfy
even the greediest Wall Street bankers.

For financial contributions toward this work, we
thank the National Institute of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of
Justice.

Even greater savings can come from treatmentbased diversion programs, like drug courts and
prosecutorial initiatives such as Brooklyn’s Drug
-ii-

For donating their time and expertise in reviewing
a draft of this paper, we thank Steven Belenko,
PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice, Temple
University; James R. McDonough, former
Director of Strategy, White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, and former
Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections; and
Faye S. Taxman, PhD, Professor, Administration
of Justice, George Mason University.
While many individuals and institutions
contributed to this effort, the findings and
opinions expressed herein are the sole
responsibility of CASA.

-iii-

Chapter I

Introduction and Executive Summary
In 1998, CASA released its landmark report,
Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's
Prison Population, revealing that four out of
five of America’s 1.7 million prison and jail
inmates were substance involved in 1996. This
report provides an update of that work, finding
that despite growing evidence of effective
strategies to reduce the prevalence and costs of
substance-involved offenders, the burden of
substance misuse and addiction to our nation’s
criminal justice system actually has increased.
Today 2.3 million adults are behind bars in
America; 1.9 million are substance involved and
almost two-thirds (64.5 percent) meet medical
criteria for an alcohol or other drug use disorder.
Governments’ continued failure to prevent and
treat addiction actually increases crime and
results in a staggering misuse of government
funds; in 2005, federal, state and local
governments spent $74 billion in court,
probation, parole and incarceration costs of adult
and juvenile substance-involved offenders. In
comparison, federal and state governments spent
only $632 million on prevention and treatment
for them.
An overwhelming body of evidence exists
documenting that substance use disorders are
preventable and treatable health conditions, and
that cost effective screening, intervention and
treatment options are available that can be
administered effectively through the criminal
justice system. Implementing these options can
save taxpayers millions of dollars and reduce
crime. Failure to do so makes no sense-particularly in this time of fiscal crisis.
To conduct this study, CASA analyzed data on
inmates from 11 federal sources, reviewed more
than 650 articles and other publications,
examined best practices in prevention and
treatment for substance-involved offenders,
reviewed accreditation standards and analyzed
costs and benefits of treatment.

inmate population; 83.4 percent were substance
involved. Those whose controlling offense was
a supervision violation, public order offense,
immigration offense or weapon offense
comprise 13.3 percent of the inmate population;
76.9 percent were substance involved.

Substance-Involved Inmates on the
Rise
Between 1996 and 2006, * the U.S. population
grew by 12.5 percent. While the percentage of
adults incarcerated in federal, state and local
correctional facilities grew by 32.8 percent
during that period, the percentage of substanceinvolved offenders behind bars in America rose
even more rapidly, by 43.2 percent. †

Alcohol Plays a Dominant Role; Few
Incarcerated for Marijuana Possession
Only
Alcohol is implicated in the incarceration of
over half (56.6 percent) of all inmates in
America. In addition to the inmates who were
convicted of an alcohol law violation, 51.6
percent of drug law violators, 55.9 percent of
those who committed a property crime, 57.7
percent of inmates who committed a violent
crime, and 52.0 percent of those who committed
other crimes were either under the influence of
alcohol at the time of the crime, had a history of
alcohol treatment or had an alcohol use disorder.

Substance misuse and addiction are key factors
in the continuous growth of the U.S. inmate
population. By 2006, a total of 2.3 million
people ‡ --one in every 133 adult Americans-were behind bars; 1 84.8 percent of all inmates
(1.9 million) were substance involved; 86.2
percent of federal inmates (0.2 million), 84.6
percent of state inmates (1.1 million) and 84.7
percent of local jail inmates (0.6 million).

Alcohol and Other Drug Use Is Implicated
in all Types of Crime

While illicit drugs are implicated in threequarters of incarcerations (75.9 percent), few
inmates are incarcerated for marijuana
possession as their controlling or only offense.
Inmates incarcerated in federal and state prisons
and local jails for marijuana possession as the
controlling offense accounted for 1.1 percent
(25,235) of all inmates and 4.4 percent of those
incarcerated for drug law violations. Those
incarcerated for marijuana possession as their
only offense accounted for 0.9 percent (20,291)
of all inmates and 2.9 percent of those
incarcerated for drug law violations.

Substance misuse and addiction are
overwhelming factors in all types of crime, not
just alcohol and drug law violations. Thirtyseven percent of federal, state and local prison
and jail inmates in 2006 were serving time for
committing a violent crime as their controlling
offense; § of these inmates, 77.5 percent were
substance involved. Those serving time for
property crimes comprise 19.2 percent of the
*

CASA has used the time frame of 1996 to 2006 for
purposes of analysis because 1996 was the latest year
of CASA’s first Behind Bars analysis and 2006 was
the latest year in final federal, state and local data at
the time of analysis.
†
The inmate data in 1996 did not permit us to
identify the number of inmates who met medical
criteria for substance use disorders. The data for
2006 do permit such analysis and it should be noted
that the percentage of substance-involved inmates in
2006 includes 60,907 inmates who do not meet any
other criteria for substance involvement than having a
substance use disorder. See Appendix A.
‡
Including 0.2 million in federal prisons, 1.3 million
in state prisons, and 0.8 million in local jails.
§
The most serious crime for which they have been
incarcerated.

Tobacco Use High Among Inmates
In 2005, 37.8 percent of state inmates and 38.6
percent of federal inmates smoked in the month
of their arrest. In contrast, approximately 24.9
percent of the population was a current
smoker. ** 2 State and federal inmates who met
clinical criteria for alcohol or other drug use
disorders had even higher rates of use; 66.5
percent of state inmates and 51.5 percent of

**

-2-

Age 12 and over who smoked in past 30 days.

federal inmates with a substance use disorder
smoked in the month of their arrest.

substance use disorder and a co-occurring
mental health problem. *

Arrests, Convictions, Sentencing
and Recidivism

Female inmates make up 8.4 percent of the total
inmate population--up from 7.7 percent in 1996.
Women inmates are somewhat likelier to have a
substance use disorder than are male inmates
(66.1 percent vs. 64.3 percent) and significantly
more likely to have co-occurring substance use
and mental health disorders (40.5 percent vs.
22.9 percent). These co-occurring conditions
are linked to the fact that female inmates are
more than seven times likelier to have been
sexually abused and almost four times likelier to
have been physically abused before
incarceration than male inmates.

While arrest rates have declined overall between
1998 and 2004, arrests for drug law violations
have increased. The number of arrestees
convicted of a crime is up overall including
federal convictions for drug law violations, but
the number of state convictions for these
offenses has declined. The number of convicted
offenders sentenced to prison or jail also has
risen overall, as have the number of federal and
state drug law violators sentenced to prison or
jail. Although re-incarceration rates have
declined slightly, they remain high, particularly
among substance-involved offenders. In 2006,
48.4 percent of all inmates had a previous
incarceration, down from 50.3 percent in 1996.

Income, Education, Age and Family
History
Compared with inmates who are not substance
involved, substance-involved inmates are:

Substance-involved inmates are likelier to begin
their criminal careers at an early age and to have
more contacts with the criminal justice system
than inmates who are not substance involved.
Among substance-involved inmates, those who
have committed a crime to get money to buy
drugs have the highest average number of past
arrests (6.6), followed by inmates who had a
history of alcohol treatment (6.3) or were under
the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the
time of their crime (5.9).

Substance Use and Mental Health
Disorders
Substance use disorders among inmates are at
epidemic proportions. Almost two-thirds (64.5
percent) of the inmate population in the U.S.
(1.5 million) meet medical criteria for an alcohol
or other drug use disorder. Prison and jail
inmates are seven times likelier than are
individuals in the general population to have a
substance use disorder. One-third (32.9 percent)
of the 2.3 million prison and jail inmates has a
diagnosis of a mental illness. A quarter (24.4
percent) of prison and jail inmates has both a

•

four times likelier to receive income through
illegal activity (24.6 percent vs. 6.0 percent);

•

almost twice as likely to have had at least
one parent abuse alcohol or other drugs
(34.5 percent vs. 18.4 percent);

•

40.6 percent likelier to have some family
criminal history (42.6 percent vs. 30.3
percent);

•

29.2 percent less likely to have completed at
least high school (30.4 percent vs. 39.3
percent).

•

20.0 percent likelier to be unemployed a
month before incarceration (32.1 percent vs.
26.8 percent); and

Inmates who are substance involved also are
likelier than those who are not substance
*

Substance use disorders are defined by inmate and
general population answers to questions that define
clinical criteria as presented in the DSM-IV. Mental
health disorders are defined as any past diagnosis of a
psychiatric disorder or a history of treatment.

-3-

involved: to be younger (average age 33.9 vs.
36.2); to have lived only with their mother
during childhood (39.6 percent vs. 32.5 percent);
and to have ever spent time in foster care (12.2
percent vs.7.3 percent).

The Role of Race and Ethnicity
Relative to the population at large, blacks and
Hispanics are overrepresented in America’s
prisons and jails. Substance involvement does
not explain this overrepresentation since black
and Hispanic inmates report lower rates of drug
use in the month prior to their arrest and have
lower rates of substance use disorders than white
inmates. Blacks make up 12.3 percent of the
U.S. population, but comprise 41.0 of the inmate
population; 60.2 percent have substance use
disorders. Hispanics make up 14.8 percent of
the U.S. population but comprise 18.8 percent of
the inmate population; 58.3 percent have
substance use disorders. Whites total 66.4
percent of the U.S. population and 34.6 percent
of the inmate population; 73.1 percent have
substance use disorders.

Juvenile or Youthful Offenders
Half (52.4 percent) of juvenile or youthful
offenders incarcerated in state prisons and local
jails meet clinical criteria for alcohol or other
drug disorders. These offenders totaled 0.7
percent (15,340) of the total inmate population
in 2006. * The problem is particularly severe
among youth incarcerated in local jails where
54.3 percent meet such clinical criteria
compared with 36.7 percent of juvenile inmates
in state prison. State and local juvenile and
youthful offenders are likelier to have cooccurring mental health and substance use
disorders than non-youthful offenders (27.8 vs.
25.4 percent).

The Treatment Gap
Of the 1.5 million prison and jail inmates who
met clinical diagnostic criteria for a substance
use disorder in 2006, only 11.2 percent had
received any type of professional treatment since
admission. Only 16.6 percent of facilities offer
treatment in specialized settings which can
produce better outcomes for offenders as
measured by drug use and arrests post-release.
Few inmates actually receive evidence-based
services, including access to pharmacological
treatments, and the availability of highly trained
staff is limited. Simply offering treatment, even
in specialized settings, does not mean that the
treatment is available to all who need it or of
adequate quality. Nicotine dependence rarely is
addressed even though it is an essential part of
addiction treatment. 3 In terms of adjunct
services, 22.7 percent of inmates with substance
use disorders participated in mutual support/peer
counseling and 14.2 percent received drug
education; however, such services alone are
unlikely to create lasting behavioral changes
among those in need of addiction treatment.

Children of Inmates
In 2006, American prisons and jails held an
estimated 1.0 million substance-involved parents
with more than 2.2 million minor children; 73.7
percent (1.7 million) of these children are 12
year of age or younger. The minor children of
inmates are at a much higher risk of juvenile
delinquency, adult criminality and substance
misuse than are minor children of parents who
have not been incarcerated. Almost four-fifths
of incarcerated mothers (77 percent in state
prison and 83 percent in federal prison) reported
being the primary daily caregiver for their
children prior to their imprisonment compared
with 26 percent of fathers incarcerated in state
prisons and 31 percent incarcerated in federal
prisons.

*

Juvenile and youthful offenders who had been tried
in adult court. Such offenders rarely are incarcerated
in federal facilities; therefore, they are not included in
this analysis. CASA’s analysis of Surveys of Inmates
in Federal Prisons showed only 127 juvenile or
youthful offenders in federal prisons in 2006.

Other conditions that frequently co-occur with
substance use disorders are Hepatitis C,
HIV/AIDS and mental health disorders. Most
facilities screen, test and treat Hepatitis C and

-4-

progress has been made in addressing
HIV/AIDS among inmates, but significant gaps
exist in the treatment of co-occurring mental
health disorders. 4

Components of Effective Treatment
A substantial body of professional standards has
been developed for providing addiction
treatment in prisons and jails. With the
exception of mandated accreditation for those
who provide treatment for opioid addiction,
however, no mechanism has been put in place to
ensure the use of existing scientific guidelines
and professional standards.

While critical to recovery and reduced
recidivism, the percentage of inmates
participating in education and job training
services declined between 1996 and 2006. The
percentage of federal prison inmates who report
participating in education or vocational
programs while confined fell from 67 percent in
1996 to 57 percent in 2006. The participation
rate among state inmates also declined from 57
percent in 1996 to 45 percent in 2006.

Offenders who receive a full course of evidencebased treatment and recovery services have the
best outcomes, including reduced relapse and
recidivism rates.

Inmate participation in religious and spiritual
activities provided by volunteers has increased,
but chaplain positions have declined. 5

Essential elements of treatment include:

Reentry of Substance-Involved
Inmates
Substance-involved offenders are likelier to
recidivate than those who are not substance
involved. Over half (52.2 percent) of substanceinvolved inmates have one or more previous
incarcerations compared with 31.2 percent of
inmates who are not substance involved. High
rates of recidivism translate into burdensome
incarceration costs for society, averaging
$25,144 per inmate, per year and ranging from a
low of $10,700 in Alabama to a high of $65,599
in Maine. Breaking the cycle of re-arrests and
re-incarceration requires breaking the cycle of
addiction.
In 2006, an estimated 1.6 million individuals age
18 and over were on parole or other restricted
release from state or federal prison and were in
the process of reentry and reintegration after
having served a prison term of at least one year.
These offenders are twice as likely to have used
drugs and/or engaged in binge drinking in the
past 30 days as members of the general
population who were not on parole or other
restricted release (55.7 percent vs. 27.5 percent),
and more than four times likelier to have
substance use disorders (36.6 percent vs. 9.0
percent).

•

screening to determine the extent and nature
of risky substance use or addiction;

•

comprehensive assessment of the nature and
extent of the criminal justice patient’s
substance-related problem and treatment
needs;

•

individualized treatment plans that are
tailored to the unique needs of the offender;

•

aftercare including community supervision,
case management and integrated services
(medical and psychiatric, housing, childcare,
social support, vocational and employment
assistance); and

•

monitoring of substance use and relapse
episodes followed by prompt rewards and
sanctions.

To assure that these practices are implemented
appropriately, training of correctional staff is
essential.
Providing addiction treatment to offenders has
benefit for the correctional system as well. In
correctional facilities where therapeutic
community treatment occurs, correctional staff
report a less stressful job environment, a higher
level of job satisfaction, lower rates of staff sick
leave, less inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff

-5-

free and employed--a conservative success
rate--the investment would more than pay
for itself one year post release.

assault and less disruptive behavior among
inmates. Violent behavior is more then twice as
likely to occur among inmates in the general
population compared with those in treatment
programs; occupational injuries related to
assaults are almost 10 times less likely to occur
in the treatment facilities. 6

•

Overcoming Barriers to
Intervention and Treatment

Even greater opportunities for cost control can
come from treatment-based diversion programs
because additional court and treatment costs
generally are lower than costs of incarceration.
According to a comprehensive review by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, the return of
investing in treatment may exceed 12:1; that is,
every dollar spent on treatment can reduce future
burden costs by $12 or more in reduced
substance-related crime and criminal justice and
health care costs. 8

Providing effective treatment and aftercare to
offenders with substance use disorders is simple
common sense. Barriers to action include
mandatory sentences that eliminate the
possibilities of alternative sentencing and/or
parole, lack of a clear legal mandate to provide
treatment, economic interests in prison
expansion and the failure of public policy to
reflect the science of addiction and changing
public attitudes about addiction and justice.
Fortunately, there is some good news;
mandatory sentencing practices are being
reversed, more examples exist of cost-effective
evidence-based practices, and public sentiment
has changed about the value of treatment for
offenders with substance use disorders.

Continued failure to meet the health care needs
of inmates with substance use disorders or to
intervene with those at high risk of developing
such disorders increases crime and its cost to
society.

Recommendations and Next Steps

In order to meet the health needs of substanceinvolved offenders and reduce crime and its
costs to society, the criminal justice system must
address risky substance use as a preventable
health problem and addictive disorders as
medical problems.

Following are key recommendations to improve
health and reduce crime and its costs to society.
The full list of recommendations is found in
Chapter VIII.

The Criminal Justice System:

Every cost-benefit analysis of criminal justicebased treatment that CASA could identify shows
that the monetary benefits of treatment outweigh
the costs. 7 Addressing the substance use issues
of the criminal justice population can save
billions in government dollars each year:
•

Providing the most comprehensive option of
prison based treatment and aftercare for
offenders with substance use disorders who
are not now receiving treatment would cost
an additional $9,745 per inmate.

•

If less than 11 percent of those who receive
such services remain substance and crime

For each additional year that a former
inmate stays substance free, employed and
out of prison, society would receive an
economic benefit of approximately $90,953.

-6-

•

Use appropriately trained health care
professionals to screen, assess and treat
substance-involved offenders using
comprehensive, evidence-based approaches
tailored to the needs of offenders.

•

Provide appropriate care for co-occurring
physical and mental health problems; offer
and encourage participation in literacy,
education, job training and parenting
programs; and, increase the availability of
religious, spiritual, and mutual support
services.

•

For inmates with substance use disorders,
provide comprehensive pre-release planning
to assure transition to a broad range of
integrated reentry services.

•

Expand the use of treatment-based
alternatives to jail and prison--including
drug courts and prosecutorial diversion
programs--and post-release supervision for
substance-involved offenders.

Federal, State and Local Governments:
•

Require that addiction treatment be provided
in criminal justice settings, that it be
medically managed and that
pharmacological treatments be available.

•

Require the accreditation of prison- and jailbased treatment programs and providers.

•

Expand federal grants to states and localities
for integrated evidence-based and promising
practices.

-7-

-8-

Chapter II

Substance-Involved Inmates on the Rise
Despite the unprecedented decline in violent and
property crimes during the past 15 years,
incarcerations linked to alcohol and other drugs
have continued to grow. More substanceinvolved offenders are crowding our prisons and
jails than ever before as our nation’s criminal
justice system maintains a costly loop of
untreated addiction and criminal recidivism.

Figure 2.A

Percent Increase in U.S. and Inmate
Populations, 1996-2006
43.2
32.8
12.5

% Increase in US
Population

% Increase in US
Inmate Population

% Increase in US
Substance-Involved
Inmate Population

Source: CASA analysis of U.S. Census Bureau (2000 and 2008);
CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in (1996 and 2006).

Between 1996 and 2006, * the U.S. population
grew by 12.5 percent. 1 In 2006, 2.3 million
American adults were incarcerated in federal
(0.2 million), state (1.3 million) and local (0.8
million) correctional facilities 2 --up 32.8 percent
from 1.7 million in 1996. 3 By 2006, there were
1.9 million substance-involved offenders behind
bars in America, an increase of 43.2 percent
4
from 1996. † (Figure 2.A)

*

CASA has used the time frame of 1996 to 2006 for
purposes of analysis because 1996 was the latest year
of CASA’s first Behind Bars analysis and 2006
provided a decade interval and was the latest year in
common and verified federal, state and local data at
the time of analysis.
†
Unless otherwise noted in this chapter, percentage
and numerical estimates are either drawn directly
from or based on CASA’s analysis of the Survey of
Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (1991 and
2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), and the Survey of Inmates
in Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in
1996 and 2006. Although the percentages of federal,
state and local inmates are derived from 1989 and
2002 (local jails) and 1991 and 2004 (prisons) data,
these percentages are applied respectively to the 1996
and 2006 estimates of the prison population. In an
effort to refine our analysis and present a more
complete description of those substance-involved
individuals behind bars in America, CASA used a
slightly different method to calculate the percent of
inmates who were substance involved than we used
in our original analysis. To provide a direct
comparison between 1996 and 2006, CASA also
recalculated the 1996 data. See Appendix A,
Methodology.
-9-

The United States has the highest
incarceration rate in the world; although
we have less than five percent of the
world’s population, we have almost a
quarter of the world’s prisoners. 5 One in
every 31 adults, or 3.2 percent of the
population, is under some form of
correctional control. 6 One in every 133
adult Americans is behind bars; 7 84.8
percent of inmates are substance
involved. *

Substance-Involved Inmate
Population Continues to Rise

Table 2.1

Substance-Involved Federal, State and Local Inmates
1996 and 2006
1996
Number
Percent
84,787
80.3
871,636
81.0
380,677
73.4

Federal Prison
State Prison
Local Jail
Total SubstanceInvolved Inmates
1,337,099
78.6
1,914,964
84.8
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and
2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners
in (1996 and 2006).

Substance misuse and addiction are key
factors in the continuous growth of the U.S.
inmate population. Substance-involved inmates
comprised 84.8 percent of all incarcerated
offenders in federal, state and local prisons and
jails in 2006--86.2 percent of federal inmates,
84.6 percent of state inmates and 84.7 percent of
local jail inmates--up 6.2 percent from 1996.
The largest increase in the percent of substanceinvolved inmates was in the jail population (11.3
percent). (Table 2.1)
Substance-involved inmates are those who
either:
•

2006
Number
Percent
164,521
86.2
1,101,779
84.6
648,664
84.7

met medical criteria for a substance use
disorder;

•

were under the influence of alcohol or other
drugs when they committed their crime;

had a history of alcohol treatment; ‡

•

were incarcerated for a drug law violation;

•

committed their offense to get money to buy
drugs;

•

were incarcerated for an alcohol law
violation; or

•

had some combination of these
characteristics. 8

Types of Substance-Involved Inmates

had a history of using illicit drugs
regularly; †

•

•

Of the six categories of substance-involved
inmates that CASA examined, the largest
increase in the number of substance-involved
inmates was found in the group who reported
ever using illicit drugs regularly. (Table 2.2)
Among substance-involved offenders, the largest
increases in the percent of offenders in the six
categories were seen in the percents incarcerated
for alcohol or drug law violations. (Table 2.3)

*

The inmate data in 1996 did not permit us to
identify the number of inmates who met medical
criteria for substance use disorders. The data for
2006 do permit such analysis and it should be noted
that the percentage of substance-involved inmates in
2006 includes 60,907 inmates who do not meet any
other criteria for substance involvement than having a
substance use disorder. For comparison between
1996 and 2006 of inmates without including this
additional 60,907 inmates, see Appendix B.
†
One or more times a week for at least a month.

‡

As measured by prior participation in treatment for
alcohol abuse.

-10-

Table 2.2
Number of Inmates Who Are Substance Involved, by Type
1996
1,201,158

2006
1,527,506

Increase
1996-2006
326,348

Percent
Increase
27.2

Used illicit drugs regularly
Met medical criteria for
substance use disorder
N/A
1,456,851
N/A
N/A
Under the influence of alcohol
or other drugs at the time of
703,788
967,046
263,258
37.4
crime
History of alcohol treatment
403,384
586,490
183,106
45.4
Drug law violation
357,734
567,366
209,632
58.6
Committed crime for money to
buy drugs
225,623
338,563
112,940
50.1
Alcohol law violation
53,950
99,955
46,006
85.3
Substance-Involved Inmates
1,337,099 1,914,964
577,865
43.2
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities
(1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004),
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in (1996 and 2006).
Table 2.3

Percent of Inmates Who Are Substance Involved, by Type
1996

2006

Percent
Change
1996-2006
-4.3

Used illicit drugs regularly
70.6
67.6
Met medical criteria for
substance use disorder
N/A
64.5
N/A
Under the influence of alcohol
or other drugs at the time of
41.4
42.8
+3.5
crime
History of alcohol treatment
23.7
26.0
+9.5
Drug law violation
21.0
25.1
+19.4
Committed crime for money to
buy drugs
13.3
15.0
+13.0
Alcohol law violation
3.2
4.4
+39.5
Substance-Involved Inmates
78.6
84.8
+7.8
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and
2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners
in (1996 and 2006).

percent from 1996 to
2006. This group
makes up 67.6
percent of inmates;
however, because of
increases in other
categories of
offenders, the share
this group represents
is down from 70.6
percent in 1996.

Met medical criteria
for substance use
disorder. Almost 1.5
million (1,456,851)
inmates met medical
criteria for alcohol
and/or drug abuse
and/or dependence in
the year prior to their
arrest. This group constitutes
64.5 percent of the inmate
population. * Seventy-six
percent (76.1 percent) of
substance-involved inmates have
a substance use disorder
diagnosis.
Under the influence at time of
crime. Almost one million
inmates (967,046) were under
the influence of alcohol or other
drugs at the time of their crimes,
up 37.4 percent from 1996--the
second largest numerical
increase (263,258) of the
categories of substance-involved
offenders. This group comprises
42.8 percent of the inmate
population, up from 41.4 percent
in 1996.

History of alcohol treatment. Among U.S.
inmates, 586,490 have a history of alcohol
treatment. The total number of inmates in this
category jumped 45.4 percent between 1996 and

Used illicit drugs regularly. The largest group
of substance-involved inmates includes those
who have used illicit drugs regularly--more than
1.5 million individuals. The total number of
offenders in this category showed the largest
increase (326,348) among categories of
substance-involved offenders, growing by 27.2

*

20.3 percent (458,113) of the inmate population is
substance involved but does not meet medical criteria
for a substance use disorder.

-11-

2006. This group comprises 26.0 percent of the
inmate population, up from 23.7 percent in
1996.

overwhelming factor in all types of crime.
(Figure 2.B)

Drug law violation. In 2006, 567,366 inmates
were incarcerated for drug law violations, an
increase of 58.6 percent from 1996. Drug law
violations include possession or use, substance
trafficking, or other unspecified substance
offenses. This group comprises 25.1 percent of
the U.S. inmate population, up from 21.0
percent in 1996. Eighty-two (82.0) percent of
those incarcerated for drug law violations also
have a history of alcohol treatment or regular
drug use, or were under the influence of alcohol
or other drugs at the time of their crimes.
Committed crime for money to buy drugs.
Our nation’s prisons and jails housed 338,563
inmates in 2006 who committed their crimes to
get money to buy drugs, up 50.1 percent since
1996. This group constitutes 15.0 percent of
inmates, increasing from 13.3 percent in 1996.
Alcohol law violation. Just under 100,000
inmates (99,955) were in prison or jail in 2006
for alcohol law violations, an increase of 85.3
percent from 1996. Alcohol law violations
include driving under the influence,
drunkenness/vagrancy/disorderly conduct, and
liquor law violations. This group makes up 4.4
percent of the inmate population, up from 3.2
percent in 1996.

Figure 2.B

Percent of Federal, State & Local Inmates by
Type of Crime Committed and
(Percent that Are Substance Involved)
37.0
29.2
(77.5)

(100)

19.2
13.3
(83.4)
(76.9)

Violent
Alcohol/Drug
Property
Other
Note: Totals equal percent of inmates incarcerated by type of crime;
shaded areas equal percent of inmates w ho are substance involved.
An additional 1.3% of inmates committed crimes that w ere not specified;
51.2% w ere substance involved.
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities
(2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006 .

Violent Crimes. The controlling offense for
more than a third (37.0 percent) of federal, state
and local prison and jail inmates was
committing a violent crime including murder,
forcible rape, robbery or aggravated assault. ‡ Of
these inmates, 77.5 percent were substance
involved; that is, they were under the influence
of alcohol or other drugs at the time of the
crime, committed their crime to get money to
buy drugs, had a history of alcohol treatment, a
history regular drug use, or had a substance use
disorder.

Substance Involvement by Type of Crime
To examine the extent to which substance
involvement varies by crime type, CASA
examined the following categories of controlling
offenses: * violent, property, substance
(alcohol/other drug), other, and unspecified
offenses. † Substance involvement is an

Substance Crimes. Federal, state and local
inmates who were incarcerated for alcohol or
drug law violations make up 29.2 percent of
inmates. By definition, all of these inmates were
substance involved.

*

A controlling offense is the most serious of the
offenses for which the inmate has been incarcerated.
†
Includes inmates who were being held for
probation/parole violation hearings, awaiting
arraignment or waiting to stand trial on these counts.
Such inmates constitute 0.6 percent of federal
inmates, 1.4 percent of state inmates and 51.9 percent
of the local jail population.

Property Crimes. Federal, state and local
inmates who were incarcerated for property
crimes--burglary, larceny-theft, car theft and
‡

Robbery and aggravated assault account for 50.2
percent of incarcerations for violent crimes.

-12-

arson--comprise 19.2 percent of the inmate
population. Of this group, 83.4 percent are
substance-involved meaning they were under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of
the crime, committed their crime in order to get
money to buy drugs, had a history of alcohol
treatment, a history regular drug use, or had a
substance use disorder.

The Dominant Role of Alcohol
Alcohol is implicated in the incarceration of
over half (56.6 percent) of all inmates in
America. In addition to the inmates who were
convicted of an alcohol law violation, 51.6
percent of drug law violators, 55.9 percent of
those who committed a property crime, 57.7
percent of inmates who committed a violent
crime, and 52.0 percent of those who committed
other crimes were either under the influence of
alcohol at the time of the crime, had a history of
alcohol treatment or had an alcohol use disorder.
(Figure 2.C)

Other Crimes. Federal, state and local inmates
incarcerated for other crimes including
supervision violations, * public order offenses
(e.g., tax law violations, antitrust, racketeering
and extortion), immigration offenses and
weapon offenses comprise 13.3 percent of the
inmate population. Of these offenders, 76.9
percent are substance involved--they were under
the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the
time of the crime, committed their crime in order
to get money to buy drugs, had a history of
alcohol treatment, a history regular drug use, or
had a substance use disorder.

Figure 2.C

Percent of Inmates Who Are Alcohol Involved
by Type of Crime
56.6

Inmates incarcerated for probation and parole
supervision violations account for 45.5 percent
of the category of other crimes; 83.2 percent of
supervision violators were under the influence of
alcohol or other drugs at the time of the crime,
committed their crime in order to get money to
buy drugs, had a history of alcohol treatment, a
history regular drug use, or had a substance use
disorder.
Conviction Unspecified. For 1.3 percent of
inmates, the controlling offense was unknown. †
Among those inmates for whom the type of
crime for which they had been convicted was
not specified, 51.2 percent were under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of
the crime, committed their crime to get money
to buy drugs, had a history of alcohol treatment,
a history regular drug use, or had a substance
use disorder.

57.7

Total Inmate Violent Crime
Population

55.9

Property
Crime

51.6

52.0

Drug Law
Violators

Other Crimes

Note: An additional 1.3% of inmates committed crimes that w ere not
specified; 33.8% w ere alcohol involved.
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities
(2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006 .

The Role of Illicit Drugs
Illicit drugs are implicated in the incarceration of
three-quarters (75.9 percent) of all inmates in
America. In addition to the inmates who were
convicted of an drug law violation, 54.3 percent
of alcohol law violators, 77.2 percent of those
who committed a property crime, 65.4 percent of
inmates who committed a violent crime, and
67.6 percent of those who committed other
crimes either committed their crime to get
money to buy drugs, were under the influence of
drugs at the time of the crime, had a history of
regular drug use or had a drug use disorder.

*

Violated the terms of their probation or parole.
National data sets reported “missing, don’t know or
refused” in this response category.

†

-13-

Inmates incarcerated in federal and state prisons
and local jails for any marijuana charge as the
controlling offense account for 2.0 percent of all
inmates and 7.9 percent of all those incarcerated
for drug law violations. Those incarcerated for
marijuana possession as the controlling offense
account for 1.1 percent (25,235) of all inmates
and 4.4 percent of those incarcerated for drug
law violations. Those incarcerated for
marijuana possession as their only offense
account for 0.9 percent (20,291) of all inmates
and 2.9 of those incarcerated for drug law
violations. (Figure 2.D)

•

63.4 percent of non-substance involved
inmates report never using an illicit drug,
including 68.6 percent of federal prison
inmates; 63.4 percent state prison inmates
and 62.3 percent local jail inmates;

•

36.6 percent of non-substance involved
inmates say they have used drugs but never
regularly, including 31.2 percent of federal
prison inmates, 36.6 percent of state prison
inmates and 37.7 percent of local jail
inmates.

Tobacco Use

Figure 2.D

Percent of All Inmates Incarcerated for
Marijuana Possession

2.0

1.1

0.9

Total

Marijuana
Possession as
Controlling Offense

Marijuana
Possession as
Only Offense

In 2005, 37.8 percent of state inmates and 38.6
percent of federal inmates smoked in the month
of their arrest. * In contrast, approximately 24.9
percent of the population was a current
smoker. † 9 State and federal inmates who met
clinical criteria for substance use disorders had
even higher rates of tobacco use; 66.5 percent of
state inmates and 51.5 percent of federal inmates
with substance use disorders smoked in the
month of their arrest. Of current smokers, 19.3
percent of state inmates and 22.3 percent of
federal inmates started or resumed smoking with
their incarceration. (Figure 2.E)

Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006 .

Figure 2.E

Percent Current Smokers
66.5
51.5

Non-Substance Involved Inmates

38.6

37.8

24.9

Non-substance involved inmates represent only
15.2 percent of the U.S. inmate population.
These inmates have not been convicted of an
alcohol or drug law violation, were not under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of
their crime, did not commit their crime to get
money for drugs, have not used drugs regularly,
have no history of alcohol treatment and no
substance use disorder.

General
Population

Federal*
Inmates

Federal*
Inmates w ith
Substance
Use
Disorders

State*
Inmates

State*
Inmates w ith
Substance
Use
Disorders

* Smoked in month before arrest.
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004) and Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004) [Data files]; Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Administration (2006).

Non-substance involved offenders fall into two
categories: those who report never using an
illicit drug; and those who have used illicit drugs
but never regularly:

*

No information on local jail inmate smoking
patterns were available in the survey data.
†
Age 12 and over who smoked in past 30 days.
-14-

Chapter III

Arrests, Convictions, Sentencing and Recidivism
Although violent and property crime rates and
victimizations reported to the police remain well
below the highs of the mid-1990s, 1 the number
of individuals convicted and sentenced to prison
or jail has continued to increase. Between 1998
and 2004, the arrests for drug law violations
have increased as have the number of federal
convictions and federal and state sentences for
these offenses; the number of state convictions
for drug law violations declined during this
period. * Although re-incarcerations have
declined slightly, they remain high, particularly
among substance-involved offenders.
(Figure 3.A)

Figure 3.A

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates
with Previous Incarcerations
52.2

31.2

Non-Substance Involved

Substance Involved

Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006 .

Total Arrests † Down, Drug Law
Arrests Up
In the 1990s, America experienced an overall
decline in arrests and a dramatic decline in
arrests for violent and property crime that
continued into the 2000s. 2 During this same
period, however, arrests for drug law violations
increased somewhat and was the only category
of arrests to increase at the federal, state and
local levels; the number of federal arrests for
other offenses, such as weapons, public order
and immigration offenses, and for supervision
violations increased more significantly.

*

Because of data limitations, it is not possible to
document trends in the percentage of those arrested,
convicted or sentenced for violent, property or other
crimes who were substance involved, with the
exception of alcohol and drug law violations and
supervision violations involving alcohol or drug law
offenses.
†
Arrests for crimes are classified into four basic
types: violent, property, substance (alcohol and other
drug violations) and other offenses (e.g., tax law
violations, antitrust, racketeering and extortion,
immigration offenses, weapon offenses and
supervision violations).
-15-

federal offenses’ in 2004, up 54.4 percent from
1998.

Federal Arrests Up Overall and for Drug
Law Violations and ‘Other’ Offenses * 3 †

Between 1998 and
Table 3.1
2004, ‡ the total number
Federal Arrests by Type of Crime
of federal arrests
1998 and 2004a
increased by 35.2
percent (from 104,119 to
1998
2004
1998-2004
140,755). Almost a
Percent Change in
quarter (23.4 percent) of
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number of Arrests
Arrest Category
federal arrests in 2004
Drug offensesb
30,012
28.8
32,980
23.4
+9.9
were for drug law
Violent offenses
4,714
4.5
4,587
3.3
-2.7
§
violations. While the
Property offenses
16,786
16.1
15,609
11.1
-7.0
number of arrestees
Other offensesc
52,607
50.5
87,579
62.2
+66.5
booked for federal
Total
104,119
100.0
140,755
100.0
+35.2
Source: CASA analysis of the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program Website
violent and property
(http://fjsrc.urban.org).
offenses dropped by 2.7
Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100.
percent and 7.0 percent,
a
Federal fiscal years: October 1, 1997-September 30, 1998; October 1, 2003-September 30,
respectively between
2004.
1998 and 2004, the
b
Drug offenses are the only substance offenses handled at the federal level; alcohol-related
number arrested for
offenses are handled at the state and local levels.
c
federal drug offenses
Other offenses include public order offenses (antitrust, food and drug, civil rights, tax law
increased by 9.9 percent
violations, racketeering and extortion, etc.), immigration offenses, weapon offenses, material
and the number arrested
witness supervision violations, missing and unknown offenses.
for other offenses such
as public-order offenses, weapon offenses,
In 2004, 57.9 percent of federal drug arrests
immigration offenses and supervision violations
involved conspiracy (29.4 percent), and
(probation and parole) increased by 66.5
distribution/possession with the intent to deliver
percent. (See Table 3.1) Supervision violations
(28.5 percent). Simple possession of drugs
constituted 26.7 percent of the category of ‘other
accounted for 13.9 percent of all federal drug
arrests. Manufacturing and related drug arrests
totaled 11.4 percent of federal drug arrests,
*
Unless otherwise noted in this section on federal
while other drug arrests totaled 16.8 percent. ** 4
arrests, all percentage and numerical estimates are
either drawn directly from or based on CASA’s
analysis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal
Justice Statistics Program Website
(http://fjsrc.urban.org). See Appendix A,
Methodology.
†
These data differ from those presented below for
state and local arrests in that for the federal data, the
unit of analysis is the individual arrestee who may
have several arrests, whereas for the state and local
data, the unit of analysis is the arrest itself.
‡
1998 is the earliest year federal arrest data are
available, and 2004 is the latest year conviction and
sentencing data are available from the U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics. In order to present data in a
consistent time frame, data from 1998 and 2004 are
used for comparison.
§
Drug offenses are the only substance offenses
handled at the federal level; alcohol-related offenses
are handled at the state and local levels.

Of those arrested for federal drug law violations
in 2004, cocaine was the primary drug involved
totaling 36.9 percent of all arrests for drug law
violations, down from 41.5 percent in 1998.
Drug arrests that involved marijuana as the
primary drug constituted 24.6 percent of all drug
law violation arrests in 2004, down from 27.8
percent in 1998. Similarly, heroin drug arrests
as a percent of all arrests for drug law violations
decreased from 6.2 percent in 1998 to 5.7

**

Because the presentation of data for 1998 does not
include the breakdown of drug arrests by offense, no
comparison is possible.

-16-

percent in 2004. On the
other hand,
amphetamine/
methamphetamine
arrests for drug law
violations almost
doubled from 1998 to
2004, rising from 9.7
percent of all drug
arrests to 15.8 percent. 5

State and Local
Arrests Down Overall
but Up for Drug Law
Violations * 6

Table 3.2

State and Local Arrests by Type of Crime
1998 and 2004
1998
2004
Arrest Category
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent Change
Drug offenses
1,559,100
10.7
1,746,570
12.5
+12.0
Alcohol offenses
2,743,500
18.9
2,598,581
18.6
-5.3
Violent offenses
675,900
4.7
586,558
4.2
-13.2
Property offenses
1,805,600
12.4
1,644,197
11.8
-8.9
Other offensesa
7,744,200
53.3
7,362,165
52.8
-4.9
Total
14,528,300
100.0
13,938,071
100.0
-4.1
Source: CASA analysis of Crime in the United States, 1998 and Crime in the United States,
2004.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100.
a
These include public order offenses (vandalism, vagrancy, curfew violations and loitering, etc),
weapon offenses, gambling and others.

Between 1998 and 2004, the total number of
While marijuana is the drug involved in the
state and local arrests decreased by 4.1 percent.
largest share of state and local arrests or drug
Approximately one-third (31.1 percent) of state
law violations (44.3 percent), followed by heroin
and local arrests in 2004 were for alcohol and
or cocaine and their derivatives (30.3 percent),
drug law violations, up from 29.6 percent in
the largest increases in arrests for drug law
1998. Between 1998 and 2004, arrests for drug
violations were seen in arrests involving
offenses increased by 12.0 percent while arrests
synthetic or manufactured drugs † (75.9 percent
for alcohol-related offenses decreased by 5.3
increase from 1998 to 2004) followed by other
percent. During this same period, state and local
non-narcotic drugs (21.6 percent increase).
arrests for violent crimes declined by 13.2
(Table 3.3)
percent. State and local arrests for property
crimes dropped by 8.9 percent between
Table 3.3
1998 and 2004. For all other offenses,
Percent of State and Local Arrests for Drug Law Violations
arrests decreased by 4.9 percent.
1998 and 2004
(Table 3.2)
Of state and local arrests for drug law
violations, 81.8 percent were for drug
possession. Between 1998 and 2004,
the proportion of drug law violation
arrests that were for drug possession
increased by 3.8 percent while the
proportion of drug law violation arrests
that were for trafficking fell by 14.2
percent. (Table 3.3)

1998
2004
Percent Change
Types of offense
Trafficking
21.2
18.2
-14.2
Possession
78.8
81.8
+3.8
Drugs involveda
Heroin or cocaine and their derivatives
36.6
30.3
-17.2
Marijuana
43.8
44.3
+1.1
Synthetic or manufactured drugs
2.9
5.1
+75.9
Other dangerous non-narcotic drugs
16.7
20.3
+21.6
Source: CASA analysis of Crime in the United States, 1998 and Crime in the
United States, 2004.
a
The four drug categories are defined as: opium or cocaine and their derivatives
(e.g. morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana; synthetic narcotics--manufactured
narcotics which can cause true drug addiction (e.g. Demerol, methadone); and
dangerous non-narcotic drugs (e.g. barbiturates, Benzedrine).

*

Unless otherwise noted in this section on state and
local arrests, all percentage and numerical estimates
are either drawn directly from or based on CASA’s
analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crime
in the United States (1998 and 2004). See Appendix
A, Methodology.

†

Methamphetamines, ecstasy and controlled
prescription drugs used non medically.

-17-

percent. In contrast to this pattern, the percent
of arrestees convicted of a violent crime rose
from 23.2 percent in 1998 to 31.1 percent in
2004; the percent convicted of property crimes †
rose from 32.9 to 34.4 percent.

Convictions Up Overall *
Arrested federal and state felony offenders are
likelier to be convicted than they were 10 years
ago; between 1998 and 2004, conviction rates
rose 17.1 percent. Six percent of total felony
convictions occur in federal courts and 94
percent in state courts. Conviction rates in the
federal court tend to be higher than in the state
courts. 7

In 2004, 55.6 percent of all state convictions for
drug law violations were for drug trafficking-down from 62.0 percent in 1998, while 44.4
percent were for drug possession--up from 38.0
percent in 1998. The percentage of those
arrested for drug trafficking who were convicted
increased slightly over this period from 68.0 to
71.4 percent. In 2002, ‡ 1.7 percent (17,867) of
all state convictions were for marijuana
possession only, down by 46.5 percent from
1998.

Federal Drug Law Convictions Up
Between 1998 and 2004, the total number of
federal convictions increased by 31.7 percent
(from 50,494 to 66,518). Drug law convictions
were 36.8 percent of all federal convictions in
2004--down from 41.3 percent in 1998.
However, between 1998 and 2004, the total
number of federal convictions that involved drug
law violations increased by 17.3 percent.
Convictions involving property offenses also
increased (4.3 percent) while convictions
involving violent crimes decreased by 5.2
percent.

Sentencing Up Overall
Convicted offenders are somewhat likelier to be
sentenced to prison, jail or probation than they
were 10 years ago. From 1998 to 2004, the
percent of convicted offenders in federal courts
who were sentenced to federal prison rose from
82 percent to 85 percent. § During this same
period, the percent of convicted offenders
sentenced in state court to prison or jail rose
from 68 percent to 70 percent.

Nine of every 10 (91.7 percent) convictions in
federal courts involving drug law violation are
for drug trafficking, down from 93.1 percent in
1998. The remaining convictions (8.3 percent)
are for drug possession.

Federal Prison Sentences for Drug Law
Violations Up

State Drug Law Convictions Down

The number of persons sentenced to federal
prison increased 36.6 percent between 1998 and
2004 (from 41,405 to 56,540). In 2004, two in
five (40.3 percent) federal prison sentences were
for drug law violations. The percent of
offenders convicted of drug law violations who
were sentenced to federal prison was 92 percent
in 1998 and 93 percent in 2004. Between 1998
and 2004, the total number of federal prison
sentences involving drug law violations
increased by 18.7 percent.

Between 1998 and 2004, the total number of
state convictions increased by 16.3 percent
(from 927,717 to 1,078,920). Drug law
violations comprised 33.6 percent of state
convictions in 2004, approximately the same
share as in 1998 (33.9 percent). Between 1998
and 2004, the total number of state convictions
involving drug law violations decreased by 15.3
*

Unless otherwise noted in the sections on
convictions and sentences (federal and state), all
percentage and numerical estimates are either drawn
directly from or based on CASA’s analysis of BJS’s
report on Felony Sentences in State Courts (1998 and
2004), and BJS’s State Court Sentencing of
Convicted Felons, 2004- Statistical Tables. See
Appendix A, Methodology.

†

Data only available for burglary and motor vehicle
theft.
‡
Most recent available data.
§
Percentages expressed as whole numbers rather than
taken to one decimal place are so presented due to the
limitation of the data source.
-18-

During this same period, the percent of those
with violent crime convictions who were
sentenced to federal prison rose from 92 percent
to 94 percent, the percent of those convicted of
property crimes who were sentenced rose from
59 percent to 60 percent, while the percent who
were convicted of other crimes * and sentenced
to prison rose from 81 to 86 percent.

prison or jail in 2004 (78 percent), the same
percentage as in 1998. During the same period,
the percent convicted of property crimes who
were sentenced to state prison or local jails rose
from 65 to 68 percent; and the percent sentenced
for other crimes rose from 63 to 69 percent.
Of sentences in 2004 to state prison or local jails
for the controlling offense of a drug law
violation, 57.3 percent were for convictions of
drug trafficking (139,214 of 243,110), down
from 64.8 percent in 1998; 42.4 percent † of such
sentences were for convictions of possession of
drugs.

Nearly all (91.7 percent) drug law violation
sentences to federal prisons were for drug
trafficking (20,879 of 22,759 in 2004)--down
from 94.1 percent in 1998; eight percent were
for drug possession. According to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, of all drug defendants
sentenced in Federal Court in 2001 for
marijuana crimes, only 2.3 percent received
sentences for simple possession of marijuana 8
and approximately a third of those sentenced
served time in prison. 9

Re-Incarceration Down but Still
High, Particularly among
Substance-Involved Offenders ‡ 10
In 2006, 48.4 percent § of all inmates had a
previous incarceration, down from 50.3 percent
in 1996. ** Substance-involved offenders are
likelier to be re-incarcerated than those who are
not substance involved. Although the
percentage of offenders who were reincarcerated †† decreased between 1996 and 2006
for all offenders, the percent of substanceinvolved offenders who were re-incarcerated
was much higher than among non-substance
involved offenders, both in 1996 (53.4 vs. 38.9

State Prison and Local Jail Sentences for
Drug Law Violations Up
The number of persons sentenced to state
prisons and local jails increased 19.7 percent
between 1998 and 2004 (from 630,848 to
755,244). Forty percent of sentences were to
state prison and 30 percent to local jails. The
remaining 30 percent of convicted felons were
sentenced to probation with no jail or prison
time or received a sentence that included fines,
restitution, treatment, community service or
some other penalty.

†

Total does not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
Unless otherwise noted in this section, percentages
and numerical estimates are either drawn directly
from or based on CASA’s analysis of the Survey of
Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (1991 and
2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), and Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in
(1996 and 2006). See Appendix A, Methodology.
§
When only percentages of inmates are reported,
data from 2002 (local jails) and 2004 (prisons) are
presented. When estimates of actual numbers of
inmates are presented, 2002/2004 percentages are
applied to the 2006 estimates of the prison
population.
**
This analysis involves the inmate data sets used in
Chapter II which are available for the period 19962006.
††
The percent with one or more previous
incarcerations.
‡

In 2004, those sentenced to state prisons and
local jails for drug law violations made up 32.2
percent of all state felony incarceration
sentences. The percent of those sentenced to
state prisons and local jails for drug law
violations was 68 percent in 1998 and 67 percent
in 2004. Between 1998 and 2004, the total
number sentenced to state prisons and local jails
for drug law violations increased by 20.1
percent.
Persons convicted of a violent felony were most
likely to receive an incarceration sentence to
*

Composed of non-violent offenses such as receiving
stolen property and vandalism.
-19-

Among substance-involved inmates, those who
have committed a crime to get money to buy
drugs have the highest average number of past
arrests (6.6), followed by inmates who had a
history of alcohol treatment (6.3), were under
the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the
time of their crime (5.9), or had a substance use
disorder (5.8). (Table 3.5)

percent) and 10 years later in 2006 (52.2 percent
vs. 31.2 percent).
Substance-involved inmates are likelier to begin
their criminal careers at an early age and to have
more contacts with the criminal justice system
than inmates who are not substance involved.
The first arrest for a criminal offense among
substance-involved inmates occurs at about age
18.6 compared with the first arrest at age 20.8
years for those who are not substance involved.
This pattern is true among federal, state and
local jail inmates. (Table 3.4)

Juvenile Delinquency, Substance Use and
Adult Recidivism
Without timely and adequate interventions,
youthful offenders are at increased risk of
developing persistent criminal careers. 11 In its
2004 report, Criminal Neglect: Juvenile Justice,
and The Children Left Behind, CASA
documented how the juvenile justice system has
failed to provide juvenile offenders a safe and
therapeutic environment and assist with their
reintegration into society. 12 CASA’s analysis of
more recent data suggests that the failure to
prevent and control juvenile involvement in
crime and substance use directly contributes to
the growth of adult prison and jail populations.

Substance-involved inmates also report higher
average numbers of past arrests (5.3) than their
non-substance involved peers (2.5). Again, the
relationship holds for those in federal and state
prisons and local jails. (Table 3.4)
Among those inmates who had a history of
previous incarcerations, substance-involved
inmates have a higher average number of past
incarcerations (3.2) than non-substance involved
inmates (2.5). This is true among federal, state
and local jail inmates. (Table 3.4)

Table 3.4

Comparison of Re-Incarceration Among Prison and Jail Inmates
Federal Prison
NonSubstance Substance
Involved
Involved

State Prison
NonSubstance
Substance
Involved
Involved

Local Jail
NonSubstance
Substance
Involved
Involved

Total
NonSubstance
Substance
Involved
Involved

Age at first
arrest
21.4
19.7
20.1
18.1
21.8
19.2
20.8
18.6
Number of
past arrests
2.1
4.2
2.6
5.6
2.3
5.1
2.5
5.3
Percent had at
least one prior
29.9
41.7
33.8
54.9
27.0
50.2
31.2
52.2
incarceration
Number of
prior
2.2
2.5
2.6
3.1
2.5
3.4
2.5
3.2
incarcerations
among those
who had at
least one prior
incarceration
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006.

-20-

Being arrested at an early age,
being convicted as a juvenile or
youthful delinquent * and
beginning alcohol or other drug
use at an early age all are
related to recidivism. 13
CASA’s analysis reveals that
whereas first time adult inmates
in local jails report an average
age at first arrest of 20.6 years,
the average age at first arrest for
habitual adult jail inmates who
had at least three prior prison or
jail sentences is 17.6 years.
Earlier initiation of substance
use and involvement in criminal
activity also powerfully predict
adult substance addiction. For
example, jail inmates who meet
clinical criteria for substance
use disorders were younger at
the time of their first arrest than
were those who do not meet
such criteria (19.0 years vs. 21.0
years); they also were younger
when they began using alcohol
or other drugs (16.3 years for
alcohol and 15.6 years for other
drugs vs. 17.7 years for both)
and more likely to have a
juvenile record (62.6 percent vs.
31.2 percent). (Table 3.6)

Table 3.5

Average Number of Past Arrests by Types of
Substance Involvement
Federal
Prison

State
Prison

Local
Jail

Total
Non-substance involved
inmates
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.5
Substance-involved inmates
4.2
5.6
5.1
5.3
Had a substance use
disorder
4.9
6.1
5.4
5.8
Had a history of using illicit
drugs regularly
4.8
5.9
5.4
5.7
Under the influence of
drugs and alcohol at the
5.1
6.1
5.6
5.9
time of crime
Had a history of alcohol
treatment
5.1
6.2
7.0
6.3
Incarcerated for a drug law
violation
3.5
5.3
4.4
4.6
Committed crime to get
money to buy drugs
4.8
6.9
6.2
6.6
Convicted of an alcohol law
violation
2.8
6.3
5.1
5.4
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004),
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
Table 3.6

Underage Criminal Activity and Onset of Substance Use
Among Local Jail Inmates
Adult
Percent with
Substance Use
Age at
Arrest or
Age When
Age When
Disorder
First
Incarceration
First
First Used
Diagnosis
Arrest
Prior to Age 18
Drank
Drugs
No substance
use disorder
21.0
31.2
17.7
17.7
Substance use
disorder
19.0
62.6
16.3
15.6
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 [Data files],
and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

*

A juvenile/youthful delinquent is a law-violator
who has not yet reached the age of majority and
whose disposition is meant to rehabilitate rather than
to punish. The specific age requirements vary from
state to state. In contrast, a youthful offender is a
minor who is subject to more severe punitive
dispositions because of the seriousness of his or her
illegal acts.
-21-

-22-

Chapter IV

Profiles of Substance-Involved Inmates
Almost two-thirds (64.5 percent) of the inmate
population * 1 in the U.S. meet medical criteria
for a substance use disorder. Prison and jail
inmates are seven times likelier than are
individuals in the general population to have a
substance use disorder. One-third (32.9 percent)
of the 2.3 million prison and jail inmates have a
mental health disorder. A quarter (24.4 percent)
of prison and jail inmates has both a substance
use disorder and a co-occurring mental health
disorder. † (Figure 4.A)
Relative to the population at large, black and
Hispanic individuals are overrepresented in
America’s prisons and jails, yet are less likely
than white inmates to have substance use
disorders. Substance-involved inmates are
likelier to come from families with substance

Figure 4.A

Percent of Inmates with Substance Use
and Mental Health Disorders
64.5
32.9

*

Unless otherwise noted in the chapter, percentage
and numerical estimates of the inmate population are
either drawn directly from or based on CASA’s
analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of
Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in
2006. See Appendix A, Methodology.
†
Substance use disorders are defined by inmate and
general population answers to questions that define
clinical criteria in accordance with the clinical
diagnostic criteria presented in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)-the main diagnostic reference of mental health
professionals in the United States. The questions on
substance abuse ask about problems at work, home,
and school; problems with family or friends; physical
danger; and trouble with the law due to use of
prescription drugs. The questions on substance
dependence ask about health, emotional problems,
attempts to cut down on use, tolerance, withdrawal
and other symptoms associated with the use of
prescription drugs. Dependence reflects a more
severe substance problem than abuse, and persons are
classified with abuse of a particular substance only if
they are not dependent on that substance. Mental
health disorders are defined by inmate answers to
questions of any past diagnosis of a psychiatric
disorder or a history of treatment.

24.4

Substance Use
Disorders

Mental Health
Disorders

Co-Occurring
Substance Use
and Mental Health
Disorders

Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006 .

-23-

use problems and criminal histories, to be
poorly educated and unemployed, and to have
spent time in foster care than are nonsubstance involved inmates.
Inmate groups with substance use disorders
requiring special attention include female
inmates, juvenile offenders housed in adult
corrections facilities, inmates with minor
children, those with HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C
and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and
veterans.

Characteristics of SubstanceInvolved Inmates
Substance-involved inmates differ from those
who are not substance involved in several key
ways. (See Appendix A, Methodology)
Compared with inmates who are not
substance involved, substance-involved
inmates are:
•

four times likelier to receive income
through illegal activity (24.6 percent vs.
6.0 percent);

•

almost twice as likely to have had at least
one parent abuse alcohol or other drugs
(34.5 percent vs. 18.4 percent);

•

40.6 percent likelier to have some family
criminal history (42.6 percent vs. 30.3
percent);

•

29.2 percent less likely to have completed at
least high school (30.4 percent vs. 39.3
percent); and

•

20.0 percent likelier to be unemployed a
month before incarceration (32.1 percent vs.
26.8 percent).

Table 4.1

Background Characteristics of Substance-Involved and
Non-Substance Involved Inmates
Percent
Substance
Involved
(1,914,964)
33.9

Percent
NonSubstance
Involved
(344,019)
36.2

Average age (years)
Gender
Male
91.7
91.0
Female
8.3
9.0
Participation in religious activitiesa
56.4
58.3
Family criminal historyb
42.6
30.3
Lived with mother in childhood
39.6
32.5
Parental substance abusec
34.5
18.4
Unemployed
32.1
26.8
Income through illegal activity
24.6
6.0
Married
16.4
20.9
Completed at least high school
30.4
39.3
Ever spent time in foster care
12.2
7.3
Income through welfare/charity
5.5
4.4
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006.
a
Had participated in religious activities such as religious services,
private prayer or meditation, or Bible reading or studying in the past
week.
b
Had an immediate family member who had served time in jail or
prison.
c
Had at least one parent abusing alcohol or illicit drugs.

Substance-involved inmates are more likely than
non-substance involved inmates to have a
mental health problem (34.5 percent vs. 25.7
percent) or to have been on probation or parole
at the time of their arrest (44.1 percent vs. 28.9
percent).

Inmates who are substance involved also are
likelier than those who are not substance
involved to be: younger (average age 33.9 vs.
36.2), to have lived only with their mother
during childhood (39.6 percent vs. 32.5 percent);
and to have ever spent time in foster care (12.2
percent vs.7.3 percent). (Table 4.1)
-24-

Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) at
Epidemic Proportions
In 2006, 64.5 percent (1.5 million * ) of the 2.3
million prison and jail inmates had a substance
use disorder--more than seven times the rate for
the general population (9.1 percent). † 2
(Table 4.2)

Table 4.2

Percent with Past Year Substance Use Disorders
U.S. Inmate Population and General Population
Ages 12 or Over
Inmate

General

The lowest proportion of inmates with substance
Population
Population
use disorders was among federal inmates. In
(2,258,983)
(299,398,484)
2006, 54.8 percent of the federal prison
Substance abuse
62.4
4.9
population had a SUD--six times the rate of the
Substance dependence
45.5
4.7
general population. Half of federal inmates
Substance abuse
9.1
AND/OR dependence
64.5
(51.8 percent) met criteria for substance abuse
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
and 36.8 percent met criteria for substance
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
dependence. In 2006, 65.2 percent of state
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local
prison inmates had a substance use disorder-Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice
more than seven and one half times the rate of
Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006; CASA analysis of the
the general population; 62.4 percent met criteria
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (2006)
for substance abuse and 47.9 percent met criteria
[Data file].
for substance dependence. Among local jail
inmates, 65.8 percent
Table 4.3
had a substance use
Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders in Prisons and Jails
disorder in 2006; 64.8
percent met criteria
Federal Prison
State Prison
Local Jail
for substance abuse
(190,844)
(1,302,129)
(766,010)
and 43.7 percent met
Number Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
criteria for substance
Substance abuse
96,843
51.8
813,082
62.4
496,517
64.8
dependence.
Substance dependence
70,178
36.8
623,428
47.9
334,576
43.7
(Table 4.3)
Substance abuse
AND/OR dependence
104,529
54.8
848,426
65.2
504,896
65.8
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004),
Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002)
[Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

*

1,456,851 inmates with SUDs.
Using the most recently available national surveys
of inmate populations--2004 for state and federal
prisons and 2002 for local jails--CASA imputed
prevalence rates for 2006 based on the weighted
2002/2004 datasets and the 2006 prison and jail
population estimates published in Prison and Jail
Inmates at Midyear, 2006, by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. CASA analyzed data from the 2006
National Survey on Drug Use and Health to
determine rates of SUDs for the U.S. population ages
12 or older.

†

-25-

and 13.0 percent (24,810) of federal prison
inmates.

High Rates of Mental Health
Disorders
CASA’s analysis found that approximately onethird (32.9 percent) of inmates have a mental
health disorder. * An estimated one in ten
individuals in the general population has such a
disorder. 4 In 2005, 45 percent of federal
inmates, 56 percent of state inmates and 64
percent of local inmates have mental health
problems. † 5 Inmates with mental health
problems are likelier than their peers without
such problems to be more entangled in the
criminal justice system. 6

Co-occurring Problems of Inmates
Co-occurring disorders among inmates in the
San Francisco County Jail increased the
chances that offenders had been incarcerated
multiple times regardless of whether they were
homeless (52 percent vs. 44 percent) or not
(30 percent vs. 17 percent). 3

Of the inmate population, 40.1 percent (906,243
inmates) had substance use disorders only while
8.5 percent (191,249 inmates) had mental health
disorders without substance use disorders. Just
27.0 percent (610,883 inmates) of the entire
prison and jail population is free of a substance
use or mental health disorder. (Table 4.4)

The Los Angeles County Jail, on any given
day, holds more people with mental illness than
any state hospital or mental health institution in
the United States. 9

A quarter of state and local
inmates with mental health
problems have had three or
more prior incarcerations
compared to a fifth of their
peers without mental health
problems. 7 They also are more
likely than are their peers to face
homelessness, unemployment,
physical or sexual abuse and
alcohol or other drug problems. 8
In 2006, 24.4 percent (550,608)
of the 2.3 million prison and jail
inmates had both a substance
use disorder and a co-occurring
mental health disorder. Among
local jail inmates, 25.5 percent
(195,652) have co-occurring
disorders as do 25.4 percent
(330,145) of state prison inmates,

Table 4.4

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Mental Health and Substance
Use Disorders
Federal
Prison
(190,844)

State
Prison
(1,302,129)

Local
Jail
(766,010)

Total
(2,258,983)

Both mental health and
substance use disorders
13.0
25.4
25.5
24.4
Mental health disorders
only
6.6
9.2
7.7
8.5
Substance use disorders
only
41.8
39.8
40.2
40.1
None
38.7
25.6
26.5
27.0
Totala
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities
(2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006.
a
Columns may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

*

Defined as any past diagnosis of a psychiatric
disorder or history of treatment.
†
Defined by a clinical diagnosis, having received
mental health treatment during the prior 12 months or
experiencing sub-clinical levels of symptoms based
on the DSM-IV.
-26-

While mental health disorders alone rarely
increase the rate or frequency of criminal
behaviors, their co-occurrence with substance
use disorders dramatically increases the risk of
criminal activities. 10 Increased rates of reincarceration of inmates with co-occurring
mental health and substance use disorders
suggest that they are not being rehabilitated
under the current system and instead are cycling
in and out of incarceration. 11

Figure 4.B

Percent of General and Inmate Popula tions
by Race and Ethnicity
General Population

41.0

12.3

Most Minorities Over-Represented
in Inmate Population
Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans are
overrepresented in our nation’s prisons and jails.
In 2006, blacks constituted 12.3 percent of the
U.S. adult population and 41.0 percent of the
inmate population. Hispanics were 14.8 percent
of the U.S. population and 18.8 of the inmate
population, while Native Americans comprised
0.8 percent of the U.S. population and 3.8
percent of the inmate population. Whites
comprised 66.4 percent of the U.S. population
and 34.6 percent of the inmate population.
(Figure 4.B and Table 4.5)

66.4

Inmate Population

Black

34.6
14.8

18.8

Hispanic

White

Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006 ; U.S. Census Bureau (2006).

using offenders than are whites whose
controlling offenses are drug charges (18.5
percent vs. 7.4 percent). 12
Between 1983 and 1997, the number of black
offenders admitted to prison for drug offenses
grew more than 26 times, relative to a sevenfold
increase for white offenders. 13 As of 2008,
more than one in every 100 adults in the U.S.
were incarcerated; however, the numbers remain
much higher for minority groups. One in 15
black men (one in nine among black men ages

In the general population, more blacks report
having been booked for a crime in the past year
(21.5 percent) than whites (16.5 percent) or the
population as a whole (16.6 percent). Black
inmates whose controlling offenses are a drug
charges are more likely to be non-substance
Table 4.5

Percent of Substance-Involved Inmates by Race/Ethnicity
Compared with the General Population
Inmate
SubstanceNon-Substance
U.S. Adult
Population
Involved Inmates
Involved Inmates
Population
(2,258,983)
(1,914,964)
(344,019)
(299,398,484)
Whitea
34.6
35.4
31.2
66.4
Blackb
41.0
40.8
42.0
12.3
Hispanic
18.8
18.4
20.5
14.8
Native American
3.8
3.9
3.4
0.8
Otherc
1.6
1.4
2.7
5.8
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates
in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau
of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006; U.S. Census Bureau (2006).
a
Non-Hispanic white.
b
Non-Hispanic black.
c
Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.
-27-

Black and Hispanic inmates also are less likely
than are white and Native American inmates to
have mental health problems; 25.4 percent of
black inmates and 22.9 percent of Hispanic
inmates have a mental health disorder compared
with 46.1 percent of white inmates and 45.4
percent of Native American inmates. This holds
true for federal, state and local jail inmates.

20-34) and one in 36 Hispanic men were
incarcerated in 2006. 14
Substance involvement does not explain this
overrepresentation since black and Hispanic
inmates report lower rates of drug use in the
month prior to their arrest and have lower rates
of substance use disorders than white inmates.
Some explanations that have been offered for the
disproportionately high number of incarcerated
individuals from minority groups include: the
legal provision of harsher sentences for the
possession and sale of crack cocaine, a drug
more often used by blacks; the law enforcement
emphasis on outdoor drug sale venues more
frequently found in poor and minority
communities; the concentration of police
resources in minority and racially mixed
neighborhoods of major urban areas; and racespecific sentencing practices by the judges. 15

Blacks and Hispanics
Have Lower Rates of
Substance Use and
Mental Health
Disorders Than Whites
and Native Americans

Similarly, black and Hispanic inmates had
considerably lower rates of co-occurring
substance use and mental health disorders than
white and Native American inmates; 17.7
percent of black inmates and 16.5 percent of
Hispanic inmates compared with 35.9 percent of
white inmates and 33.9 percent of Native
American inmates. (Table 4.7) This relationship
holds true for federal, state and local inmates.

Table 4.6

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Substance Use Disorders
by Race/Ethnicity
Whitea
(782,079)
71.7

Blackb
(925,831)
57.2

Hispanic
(424,861)
56.6

Native
American
(85,948)
67.2

Otherc
(40,264)
49.6

Even though black and
Substance abuse
Hispanic inmates are
Substance
overrepresented in
dependence
55.2
39.7
40.0
52.3
36.0
America’s prisons and jails, Substance abuse
AND/OR
73.1
60.2
58.3
69.5
51.4
they report fewer risk
dependence
factors. They are less
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004),
likely than are white
Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
inmates to meet diagnostic
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
criteria for a substance use
a
Non-Hispanic white.
disorder (60.2 percent of
b
Non-Hispanic black.
c
black inmates and 58.3
Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.
percent of Hispanic
inmates vs. 73.1 percent of white inmates).
Native American inmates also are
overrepresented in prisons and jails. Like white
inmates, they are likelier to have substance use
disorders (69.5 percent) than blacks and
Hispanics. (Table 4.6) This holds true for
inmates in federal and state prisons and local
jails.

-28-

Table 4.7

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Mental Health Problems and
Co-Occurring Disorders by Race/Ethnicity
Whitea
(782,079)
46.1

Blackb
(925,831)
25.4

Hispanic
(424,861)
22.9

Native American
(85,948)
45.4

Otherc
(40,264)
24.9

Diagnosed with a mental health disorder
Co-occurring substance use disorder and
mental health disorder
35.9
17.7
16.5
33.9
17.3
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
Non-Hispanic white.
b
Non-Hispanic black.
c
Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.

abused, having spent time in foster care, or
having parents or guardians who were
themselves substance abusers. The only
exceptions to this general trend is the large
proportion of black inmates who have family
members in prisons or jails and did not have
legal income in the month before arrest.
(Table 4.8).

Black and Hispanic inmates also report
significantly less exposure to stressful or
traumatic life events than do white and Native
American inmates. Across all types of
correctional facilities, the white and Native
American inmates are more likely than black
and Hispanic inmates to report ever having been
homeless, having been physically or sexually

Table 4.8

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Other Incarceration-Related Risk Factors
by Race/Ethnicity
Whitea
(782,079)
11.1

Blackb
(925,831)
9.0

Hispanic
(424,861)
8.6

Native American
(85,948)
13.9

Otherc
(40,264)
8.5

Ever been homeless
Did not have legal income in month
before arrest
19.4
25.1
17.8
18.2
16.5
Ever physically abused before
admission
22.1
9.9
10.8
29.1
12.0
Ever sexually abused before
admission
11.7
5.2
5.1
15.1
6.5
Ever lived in foster home, agency
or institution while growing up
14.2
9.4
8.8
19.8
9.5
Parents or guardians ever abused
alcohol/drugs while growing up
38.3
27.7
26.5
45.5
18.8
Family members ever incarcerated
37.2
45.3
35.3
52.1
22.2
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
Non-Hispanic white.
b
Non-Hispanic black.
c
Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.

-29-

Female Inmates Have Higher Rates
of Substance Use and Mental
Health Disorders Than Male
Inmates
Female inmates make up 8.4 percent of
the total inmate population--up from 7.7
percent in 1996. 16 Female inmates are
likelier to have a substance use disorder
than are male inmates (66.1 percent vs.
64.3 percent). (Table 4.9) This holds true
for both state prisons and local jails, but
among inmates in federal prisons, males
have higher rates of substance use
disorders than do females. (Table 4.10)

Table 4.9

Percent of All Prison and Jail Inmates with Past Year
Substance Use Disorders, by Gender
Male
(2,069,027)
62.3
44.9

Female
(189,956)
63.5
52.6

Substance abuse
Substance dependence
Substance abuse AND/OR
dependence
64.3
66.1
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files],
and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

Female inmates also are likelier to have
mental health problems than are male
inmates. 18 An estimated 54.7 percent of female
inmates (vs. 30.8 percent of males) have a
mental health disorder as reflected by past
diagnosis or treatment history. Female inmates
are likelier than are male inmates to suffer from
co-occurring substance use and mental health
disorders (40.5 percent vs. 22.9 percent). While
female inmates are likelier than male inmates to
have only a mental health disorder (14.2 percent
vs. 7.9 percent), they are significantly less likely
to have only a substance use disorder (25.6
percent vs. 41.5 percent). (Table 4.11)

Among women, regular drug use can be either
the impetus for or the byproduct of other
crimes. In a focus group with drug-involved
female inmates in St. Louis, Missouri, nearly
half the women who reported engaging in
prostitution did so to support their habit, while
others described using drugs to numb the
emotional impact of the sex trade which they
participated in to support themselves and their
families. 17

Table 4.10

Percent of Federal and State Prison and Local Jail Inmates with Substance Use Disorders,
by Gender
Federal Prison
(190,844)
Male
Female
(177,468)
(13,376)
52.2
46.3
36.5
40.3

State Prison
(1,302,129)
Male
Female
(1,214,206)
(87,923)
62.3
64.3
47.2
56.9

Local Jail
(766,010)
Male
Female
(677,353)
(88,657)
64.8
65.3
42.8
50.2

Substance abuse
Substance dependence
Substance abuse AND/OR
dependence
55.2
49.5
65.0
67.6
65.6
67.1
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates
in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau
of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

-30-

The incarceration of women who are substanceinvolved mothers has a particularly disruptive
effect on disadvantaged families, many of which
are female-headed households. 20 Failure to
address their substance-related problems can
perpetuate both high recidivism rates and a high
rate of juvenile delinquency among their
children. 21

Table 4.11

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Mental
Health and Substance Use Disorders by Gender
Male
(2,069,027)

Female
(189,956)

Both mental health
and substance use
22.9
40.5
disorders
Mental health
disorders only
7.9
14.2
Substance use
disorders only
41.5
25.6
None
27.7
19.7
Total
100.0
100.0
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in
Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of
Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey
of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

Table 4.12

Female inmates in federal, state and local
correctional facilities are likelier than male
inmates to have been exposed to stressful or
traumatic life events, many of which are
significant risk factors for substance use and
mental health disorders. 19 Compared with male
inmates, female inmates are:
•

more than seven times likelier to have been
sexually abused before incarceration;

•

almost four times likelier to have been
physically abused before incarceration;

•

77.6 percent likelier to have had a mental
health problem in the year before
incarceration;

•

57.5 percent likelier to have ever been
homeless; and

•

30.7 percent likelier as children to have had
parents or guardians who abused alcohol or
other drugs.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Mental Health
Problems and Co-Occurring Disorders
by Gender
Male
(2,069,027)

Female
(189,956)

Ever sexually abused before
incarceration
5.1
37.6
Ever physically abused before
12.2
46.1
incarceration
Ever had a mental health problem
in the year
30.8
54.7
Ever been homeless
9.4
14.8
Parents or guardians ever abused
alcohol or drugs while growing up
30.9
40.4
Family members ever incarcerated
39.5
50.5
Ever lived in foster home, agency
or institution while growing up
11.2
13.4
Did not have legal income in
month before arrest
21.5
19.2
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

Female inmates also were likelier to have lived
in a foster home or institution and to have family
members who had been incarcerated than were
male inmates. (Table 4.12)

-31-

Juvenile or Youthful Inmates * at
High Risk

Women Behind Bars in New Hampshire 22
In New Hampshire, more than 2,800 women are
behind bars, under correctional supervision in the
community or released from county houses of
correction on any given day during the past year.
Two-thirds of incarcerated women in New
Hampshire have children and 45 percent of them
are single mothers. Each year, an estimated 1,300
or more children are affected by their mother’s
incarceration; 85 to 92 percent of these women are
substance involved. Two-thirds of the incarcerated
women say they have had previous diagnoses of
mental illness; 14 to 20 percent have a primary
diagnosis of mental illness confirmed while at the
jail. Half of the women report having both
substance use problems and a history of mental
illness.

In 2006, 0.7 percent (15,340) of the 2.3 million
offenders incarcerated in state prisons and local
jails were juveniles or youthful offenders who
had been tried in adult court. †
In 2006, half (52.4 percent) of juvenile or
youthful offender inmates in state prisons and
local jails met clinical criteria for substance use
disorders. The problem is particularly severe
among youth incarcerated in local jails where
54.3 percent met such clinical criteria compared
with 36.7 percent of juvenile inmates in state
prison. (Table 4.13)

Table 4.13

Percent of Inmates Convicted as Juvenile or Youthful Offenders and Confined in State
Prisons and Local Jails who have Substance Use Disorders
State Prison
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(1,300,474)
(1,655)
62.5
36.7
47.9
21.2

Local Jail
NonJuveniles Juveniles
(752,325)
(13,685)
65.0
53.8
43.9
29.2

Total
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(2,052,799)
(15,340)
63.4
52.0
46.5
28.3

Substance abuse
Substance dependence
Substance abuse
AND/OR dependence
65.2
36.7
66.0
54.3
65.5
52.4
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates
in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

*

The category of juvenile or youthful offenders,
established by statute in some states, has an age limit
usually above that of juvenile delinquents (often
refers to youth ages 18 to 25). Youthful offenders are
not sentenced as adults and special correctional
commitments and special record sealing procedures
are made available. They are distinguished from
juvenile delinquents who are youth sentenced to
juvenile court. Age limitations of juvenile
delinquents vary among the states from 16 to 21
years of age, with the most common upper limit
being 18 years.
†
Juvenile and youthful offenders rarely are
incarcerated in federal facilities; therefore, they are
not included in this analysis. CASA analysis of
Surveys of Inmates in Federal prisons showed only
127 juvenile or youthful offenders in federal prisons
in 2006.
-32-

Juvenile and youthful offenders are 52.0 percent
likelier than non-juvenile offenders to have ever
lived in a foster home, agency, or institution
while growing up (17.7 percent vs. 11.7 percent).
(Table 4.15)

State and local juvenile and youthful offenders
are somewhat likelier to have co-occurring
mental health and substance use disorders than
are non-youthful offenders (27.8 percent vs. 25.4
percent). The largest difference is evident in
local jails, where 29.6 percent of inmates who
are juvenile or youthful offenders have both a
mental health disorder and a substance use
disorder, compared to 25.5 percent of nonjuvenile inmates. Juvenile and youthful
offenders are almost twice as likely to have a
mental health disorder with no co-occurring
substance use disorder than are non- juvenile
inmates (12.8 percent vs. 8.6 percent). However,
juveniles and youthful offenders are only half as
likely as non-juvenile offenders to have
substance use disorders (25.0 percent vs. 40.1
percent). (Table 4.14)

Between 1992 and 2000, 45 states passed or
amended legislation making it easier to
prosecute juveniles as adults, resulting in the
doubling of the number of youth under age 18
confined in adult prisons and jails. 23 In 2000,
that trend reversed. 24

Table 4.14

Percent of Inmates Convicted as a Juvenile or Youthful Offenders and Confined in Prisons
and Jails who have Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders
State Prison
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(1,300,474)
(1,655)

Local Jail
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(752,325)
(13,685)

Total
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(2,052,799)
(15,340)

Both mental health
and substance use
25.4
9.0
25.5
29.6
25.4
27.8
disorders
Mental health
disorders only
9.2
20.9
7.6
11.8
8.6
12.8
Substance use
disorders only
39.8
27.8
40.5
24.7
40.1
25.0
None
25.6
42.3
26.4
33.9
25.9
34.6
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
Table 4.15

Percent of Inmates Convicted as a Juvenile or Youthful Offender and Confined in Prisons
and Jails Who Had Been in Foster Care Placement
State Prison
NonJuveniles
Juveniles
(1,300,474)
(1,655)

Local Jail
NonJuveniles Juveniles
(752,325)
(13,685)

Total
NonJuveniles
(2,052,799)

Juveniles
(15,340)

Ever lived in foster
home, agency or
12.7
8.7
9.8
18.8
11.7
17.7
institution while
growing up
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.

-33-

and federal prisons, respectively. 25

Substance-Involved Inmates Are
Parents to More Than 2.2 Million
Minor Children

Although there is limited research on the topic,
losing a parent to prison or jail appears to
interrupt a child’s natural maturational
progress. 26 The minor children of inmates are
likely to experience a sense of parental rejection
and shame, disrupted living arrangements,
financial hardship and poor quality of care. 27
They also are at a much higher risk of juvenile
delinquency and adult criminality. 28 Children
may experience social, emotional and
developmental problems due to their parents’
incarceration, 29 including traumatic stress,
particularly if they are present during the
parent’s arrest. 30 Children may experience
social and peer isolation due to the stigma of
having an incarcerated parent, and may
eventually develop antisocial behavior. 31

In 2006, American prisons and jails held an
estimated 1.0 million substance-involved parents
with more than 2.2 million minor children.
(Table 4.16) Approximately three-fourths (73.7
percent or 1.7 million) of these children are 12
year of age or younger. More than half of all
substance-involved inmates (55.1 percent) have
at least one child under age 18: 63.6 percent of
substance-involved federal prison inmates, 52.8
percent of substance-involved state prison
inmates and 57.0 percent of substance-involved
local jail inmates. One-quarter of substanceinvolved incarcerated parents are married.
While male inmates with substance use
disorders are likelier than female inmates with
substance use disorders to have minor children
under age 18 (77.7 percent vs. 71.5 percent),
female inmates with substance use disorders
who have minor children were likelier than their
male counterparts to have lived with their minor
children before incarceration (55.3 percent vs.
41.3 percent). Almost four-fifths of incarcerated
mothers (77 percent in state prison and 83
percent in federal prison) reported being the
primary daily caregiver for their children prior to
their imprisonment, compared with 26 percent
and 31 percent of fathers incarcerated in state

During adolescence, the incarceration of a parent
may interrupt key developmental tasks such as
learning to control and express emotions, work
well with others, resolve conflicts, develop an
identity and engage in adult work and
relationships. Poor school performance and
increased delinquency are other noted effects. 32
Children of parents with substance use disorders
may have experienced increased neglect and
abuse including violence in their homes, in turn
increasing their chances of alcohol and other
drug use. 33

Table 4.16

Minor Children of Substance-Involveda Incarcerated Parents
Federal Prison
(164,521)

State Prison
(1,101,779)

Local Jail
(648,664)

Total
(1,914,964)

Percent of substanceinvolved incarcerated
63.6
52.8
57.0
55.1
parents with at least one
minor child
Average number of minor
children per parent with at
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
least one minor child
Estimated number of
children with substance247,147
1,211,680
800,529
2,259,356
involved incarcerated
parents
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
The number indicates only substance-involved inmates per CASA definition.
-34-

Some of these negative effects might be
mitigated by frequent communication and
visitations, 34 but 62 percent of parents in state
prisons and 84 percent of parents in federal
prisons are housed more than 100 miles from
their last place of residence making regular visits
difficult. * 35 In fact, 59 percent of parents in
state prisons and 45 percent of parents in federal
prisons report that their children have never
come to visit them. 36 The inability to afford
transportation to prison facilities, humiliating or
uncomfortable visiting procedures, visiting
rooms that are inhospitable to children and new
caregivers who are unwilling to facilitate visits
are other obstacles that may prevent visitation. 37

HIV/AIDS cases among federal and state prison
inmates have declined from 2.5 percent (20,651
inmates) of the inmate population in 1992 (1.2
percent of federal inmates and 2.6 percent of
state inmates) to 1.7 percent (22,480 inmates) in
2005 (1.0 percent of federal inmates and 1.8
percent of state inmates). 44 Self-reports of state
prison inmates indicate that HIV infection rates
were slightly higher for inmates with substance
use disorders than those without such diagnoses,
for women and for African American inmates. 45
Among federal inmates in 2004, HIV infection
rates were highest among African American
female inmates (2.6 percent). 46
CASA’s analysis suggests that the decline in
HIV prevalence among federal and state inmates
may in part be a function of reduced risk
behavior. The proportion of federal and state
prison inmates who reported ever having
injected drugs declined from 23.2 percent to
17.0 percent between 1996 and 2006, and the
percent of federal and state inmates who had
ever shared needles for drug injection declined
from 11.1 percent to 7.0 percent. 47 (Table 4.17)

Maternal absence increases adult children’s
chances of being convicted of a crime or being
on probation by 75 percent. 38 The adult
children of incarcerated mothers are nearly four
times likelier to serve time on probation and
nearly three times likelier to be convicted of a
crime than are adult children whose mothers had
not been incarcerated. 39 The adult children of
incarcerated mothers are 2.5 times more likely to
be incarcerated themselves than the adult
children of incarcerated fathers. 40 If their
mother was also a regular drug user, then the
chance an adult child is incarcerated triples. 41

Hepatitis C a Significant Problem
among Inmates
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Hepatitis C is the most
common blood-borne viral infection in the
U.S.; 48 between 12 and 35 percent † of adult
prison inmates has chronic Hepatitis C
infection. 49 For jail inmates, the infection rate is
six times higher than in the general population
and for prison inmates it is seven times higher. 50
Primary risk factors for contracting Hepatitis C
are injection drug use and needle sharing, two
behaviors among inmates that may continue
during incarceration. 51

Percent of Inmates with HIV/AIDS
Declining
CASA’s 1998 Behind Bars report highlighted
that ever since the systematic tracking of
HIV/AIDS cases in federal and state correctional
systems began in 1991, injection drug use,
needle sharing among drug injectors and sex
with infected drug users rendered the prevalence
of HIV infections disproportionately higher
among the inmate population than among the
general population. 42 In 1999, the estimated rate
of confirmed AIDS cases in federal and state
prisons was nearly five times higher than in the
general population; by 2005 it was 2.7 times
higher. 43
*

Eleven percent of state prisoners and 43 percent of
federal prisoners are held more than 500 miles from
their last place of residence.

†

-35-

Rates vary by geographic region.

Table 4.17

Percent of Federal and State Inmates with HIV-Risk Behaviors
Federal Prison
State Prison
Total
2006b
1996a
2006b
1996a
1996a
2006b
e
(105,544)
(190,844)
(1,076,625) (1,302,129)
(1,492,973)
(1,182,169)
Ever injected drugs
13.8
11.1
24.1
17.9
23.2
17.0
Ever shared needles
6.2
4.3
11.6
7.4
11.1
7.0
a
Reported in CASA’s 1998 Behind Bars report.
b
CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of
Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 1996 and 2006.

Substance-involved inmates are twice as likely
to report having had a diagnosis of hepatitis * as
non-substance involved inmates (9.0 percent vs.
3.1 percent), and two and a half times likelier to
report still having problems with hepatitis (4.8
percent vs. 1.4 percent).

In addition to the increased risk for criminal
behavior that children of alcoholics face,
features of FASD itself, such as poor impulse
control, inability to comprehend consequences
of behavior, poor short-term memory, poor
anger management skills and poor judgment,
increase vulnerability to criminal behavior. 57
One study found that 60 percent of individuals
ages 12 and older with FASD in the United
States have been in trouble with authorities,
charged or convicted at some point in their
lifetime. 58 Although data on the prevalence of
individuals with FASD in the adult criminal
justice system are not available, one national
study estimated that there might be up to 28,036
undiagnosed cases of FASD and alcohol-related
neurodevelopmental disorders in U.S. prisons
and jails; indeed far less than one percent of
expected cases have been identified in the
criminal justice system. 59

Inmates with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Rarely
Diagnosed
Individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder (FASD) are at high risk for coming
into contact with the criminal justice system. 52
FASD is a term used to describe a range of
outcomes † that characterize the central nervous
system damage caused by maternal alcohol
consumption during pregnancy. This damage
may be manifested physically, cognitively and
behaviorally with evidence of difficulty in
academic performance, language,
communication, memory, attention and
decision-making. 53 First identified in the early
1970s, FASD was found in 0.5 to two cases per
1,000 births in the 1980s and 1990s. 54 It is the
leading non-genetic cause of mental retardation
in the world, 55 yet is severely under-diagnosed,
primarily due to the difficulty of making the
diagnosis but also because of limited training in
this area among physicians, other health care
professionals and social services providers. 56

Veterans in the Criminal Justice
System
One in 10 (10.0 percent) federal, state and local
inmates are veterans--9.8 percent of federal
inmates, 10.4 percent of state inmates and 9.3
percent of local inmates, compared with 11.7
percent of the U.S. adult ‡ population. Inmates
who are veterans are less likely to be substance
involved than are non-veterans (74.7 percent vs.
82.9 percent). Veteran inmates are, however,
more likely than non-veteran inmates to be
incarcerated for an alcohol law violation (6.4
percent vs. 3.9 percent). Female inmates who

*

Type not specified.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), partial Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome (pFAS) or Alcohol-Related
Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND).

†

‡

-36-

Age 18 and over.

are veterans are likelier than non-veteran female
inmates to have a history of past treatment for
alcohol dependence (29.1 percent vs. 21.7
percent) and to have committed a crime to get
money to buy drugs (20.7 percent vs. 19.8
percent). Male inmates who are veterans are
likelier than male inmates who are not veterans
to be incarcerated for committing an alcohol law
violation (6.3 percent vs. 3.9 percent).
Inmates who are veterans are less likely than
inmates who are not veterans to meet clinical
criteria for substance use disorders (60.9 percent
vs. 64.8 percent). This relationship holds true
for both state (60.3 percent vs. 65.6 percent) and
local (63.1 percent vs. 65.9 percent) inmates.
Federal prison inmates who are veterans are
somewhat more likely than are non-veteran
inmates to meet such criteria (56.2 percent vs.
55.1 percent).
Untreated substance use disorders and
depression account for much of the risk of
incarceration among veterans. The rate of posttraumatic stress disorders, a mental health
problem common among all returning veterans,
is significantly higher among incarcerated
veterans than among their non-incarcerated
peers (19 percent vs. seven percent). 60
In one study, incarcerated veterans who had
received any type of medical, surgical,
psychiatric or inpatient services for a substance
use disorder at a Connecticut VA hospital
between 1993 and 1997 were significantly more
likely than their non-incarcerated peers to have
received a drug abuse (49 percent vs. seven
percent) or alcohol abuse (44 percent vs. 13
percent) diagnosis. 61

Substance-Involved Multiple
Recidivists
Among substance-involved offenders in federal,
state, and local prisons and jails, those with three
or more prior incarcerations are likelier than
those with no prior incarcerations to be male,
older than 30, to have less than a high school
education, be unemployed, and to have received
income through welfare or charity. They also
are likelier to have spent time in foster care and
to have a history of parental substance abuse.
(Table 4.18)
Table 4.18

Percent of Substance-Involved Federal, State and Local
Inmates with Prior Incarcerations by Risk Factors
No Prior
Incarcerations
(766,660)
56.6
61.9
30.4

3+ Prior
Incarcerations
(486,683)
69.3
74.1
35.7

Older than age 30
< high school education
Unemployed
Income through
welfare/charity
4.9
7.6
Ever spent time in foster
care
9.0
19.7
Parental substance abuse
31.5
41.3
Note: 662,394 substance-involved offenders had 1 or 2 prior
incarcerations.
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006.

More than three-quarters (77.3 percent) of
convicted prison and jail inmates who have been
incarcerated three or more times prior to their
current sentence suffer from a substance use
disorder, compared with 67.0 percent of those
with one or two prior incarcerations and 54.8
percent of those with no prior prison or jail
sentences. (Table 4.19)

-37-

Table 4.19

Number of Prior Incarcerations and Prevalence of
Substance Use Disorders Among
Federal, State and Local Inmates
No Substance Use
Substance Use
Number of Prior
Disorders
Disorders
(802,132)
(1,456,851)
Incarcerations
None
45.2
54.8
1 or 2 prior
incarcerations
33.0
67.0
3 or more prior
incarcerations
22.7
77.3
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
(2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in 2006.

-38-

Chapter V
The Treatment Gap
Of the 64.5 percent of prison and jail inmates
who met clinical diagnostic criteria for a
substance use disorder in 2006, only 11.2
percent had received any type of professional
treatment since admission. * † 2 Of those who do
receive treatment, few receive evidence-based
services, including access to pharmacological
treatments, and the availability of highly trained
staff is limited. Only 16.6 percent of facilities
offer treatment in specialized settings which can
produce the best outcomes for offenders.
Tobacco addiction is rarely addressed even
though it is an essential part of addiction
treatment. In terms of adjunct services, 22.7
percent of inmates participated in mutual
support/peer counseling and 14.2 percent
received drug education; ‡ however, such
services alone are unlikely to create lasting
behavioral changes among those in need of
addiction treatment.
While critical to recovery and reduced
recidivism, the percentage of inmates
participating in education and job training
services declined between 1996 and 2006;
significant gaps also exist in the treatment of cooccurring mental health disorders. Most
facilities screen, test and treat Hepatitis C and
progress has been made in addressing
HIV/AIDS among inmates. Inmate participation
in religious and spiritual activities provided by

Twenty-eight years ago, I woke up in a jail cell
following my last alcoholic blackout. I had been
arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
I am alive and sober today only because I had access
to addiction treatment that turned my life around. 1
--Former Congressman Jim Ramstad, MN

*

Unless otherwise noted in the chapter, percentage
and numerical estimates are either drawn directly
from or based on CASA’s analysis of the Survey of
Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (1991 and
2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), and the Survey of Inmates
in Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in
1996 and 2006. See Appendix A, Methodology.
†
Comparison with previous surveys is not possible
because data on those meeting clinical criteria for
substance use disorders were not included prior to the
current surveys.
‡
Participation in specific types of professional
treatment or addiction-related services is not
mutually exclusive.
-39-

volunteers has increased, but chaplain positions
have declined.

Even violent offenders need treatment in prison
and re-entry counseling, upon release, to prevent
recidivism. It’s a matter of public health and
public safety. 3

The enormous gap between treatment need and
access exists despite a growing array of
interventions of proven efficacy and practice
guidelines for addressing the needs of substanceinvolved offenders.

--Anne Swern, First Assistant District Attorney
Kings County, NY

Few Inmates with Substance Use
Disorders Receive Treatment
Of the 1.5 million
Table 5.1
inmates with
Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Substance Use Disorders Receiving Treatment
substance use
or Addiction-Related Servicesa Since Admission
disorders in 2006,
CASA estimates
Federal Prison
State Prison
Local Jail
Total
that only 163,196
(104,529)
(848,426)
(503,896)
(1,456,851)
(11.2 percent * )
Detoxification
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
received any type
Any professional treatment since
admission
15.7
14.2
5.2
11.2
of professional
Residential facility or unit
8.8
9.2
3.1
7.1
treatment,
Counseling by a professional
7.8
6.5
2.3
5.2
including treatment
Maintenance drug
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
in a residential
Other addiction-related services
facility or unit (7.1
since admission
39.7
36.0
13.1
28.4
percent),
Mutual
support/peer
counseling
22.3
29.9
10.7
22.7
professional
Education
29.2
17.7
5.0
14.2
counseling (5.2
Source: CASA’s analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of
percent) or
Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files],
pharmacological
and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
therapy such as
Participation in specific types of professional treatment or addiction-related services is not mutually
methadone,
exclusive.
antibuse or
naltrexone (0.2 percent). Less than one percent
since the state prison system houses more
(0.9 percent) received detoxification services.
inmates than the federal and local correctional
Inmates were likeliest to receive the adjunct
systems, most inmates who received
services of mutual support/peer counseling (22.7
professional treatment did so through the state
percent) or education (14.2 percent). (Table 5.1)
prison system.
Federal prison inmates with substance use
disorders were more likely to receive treatment
including residential services, professional
counseling or pharmaceutical therapies (15.7
percent) than state prison inmates (14.2 percent)
or local jail inmates (5.2 percent). However,

*

In terms of other addiction-related services, state
prisoners were likelier to receive mutual
support/peer counseling (29.9 percent) compared
with their federal (22.3 percent) or local jail
(10.7 percent) counterparts. Federal prison
inmates were likelier to receive substancerelated education services (29.2 percent) than
state (17.7 percent) or local jail inmates (5.0
percent).

7.2 percent of the total inmate population.
-40-

Women Likelier to Receive Treatment
Than Men

Whites and Native Americans Likelier to
Receive Treatment Than Blacks and
Hispanics

Female inmates with substance use disorders are
more likely than their male counterparts to
receive residential treatment (9.6 percent vs. 6.8
percent), professional counseling (6.1 percent vs.
5.1 percent), pharmacological therapies (0.6
percent vs. 0.2 percent) or detoxification
services (1.6 percent vs. 0.9 percent). They also
are likelier than male inmates to participate in
mutual support/peer counseling (25.5 percent vs.
22.4 percent) but less likely to receive some type
of addiction-related education (13.3 percent vs.
14.3 percent). With the exception of
detoxification services in federal prisons, these
patterns hold true among federal, state and local
jail inmates. (Table 5.2)

While white inmates have the highest rate of
substance use disorders (73.1 percent), only 13.2
percent of those with such disorders receive any
professional treatment; 69.5 percent of Native
American inmates meet clinical criteria for
substance use disorders and 13.1 percent of
those with substance use disorders receive
professional treatment. Among blacks, 60.2
percent meet criteria for substance use disorders
while 10.1 percent of those with such disorders
receive treatment. Hispanic inmates, 58.3
percent of whom meet clinical criteria for a
substance use disorder, are the least likely to
have received treatment (8.6 percent).
(Table 5.3)

Table 5.2

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Substance Use Disorders Receiving Treatment or
Addiction-Related Servicesa Since Admission, by Gender
Federal Prison
Male
Female
(177,468) (13,376)
0.8
0.6

State Prison
Male
Female
(1,214,206) (87,923)
0.8
2.1

Local Jail
Male
Female
(677,353) (88,657)
1.0
1.1

Total
Male
Female
(2,069,026)
(189,957)
0.9
1.6

Detoxification
Any professional
treatment
15.2
23.7
13.7
21.2
5.0
6.4
10.9
14.3
Residential facility or
unit
8.3
16.2
8.8
14.6
3.0
3.8
6.8
9.6
Counseling by a
professional
7.6
10.3
6.3
9.1
2.3
2.7
5.1
6.1
Maintenance drug
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.6
Other addiction-related
services since
39.2
47.5
35.8
38.7
12.2
19.2
28.2
29.9
admission
Mutual support/peer
counseling
21.5
33.7
29.7
33.0
9.8
17.0
22.4
25.5
Education program
29.2
29.4
17.7
18.5
4.9
6.2
14.3
13.3
Source: CASA’s analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
Participation in specific types of professional treatment or addiction-related services is not mutually exclusive.

-41-

Table 5.3

Percent of Prison and Jail Inmates with Substance Use Disorders Receiving Treatment or
Addiction-Related Servicesa Since Admission
by Race and Ethnicity
Native
Whiteb
Blackc
Otherd
Hispanic American
(782,079)
(925,831) (424,861)
(40,264)
(85,948)
Detoxification
1.0
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.8
Any professional treatment
13.2
10.1
8.6
13.1
12.5
Residential facility or unit
8.4
6.4
5.3
7.3
9.2
Counseling by a professional
6.2
4.5
3.9
6.7
5.1
Maintenance drug
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.0
Other addiction-related services since admission
30.3
27.6
24.8
33.5
23.3
Mutual support/peer counseling
24.8
21.7
19.5
26.3
17.0
Education program
14.8
14.1
12.4
17.0
10.8
Source: CASA’s analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in
State Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
a
Participation in specific types of professional treatment or addiction-related services is not mutually exclusive;
therefore, the percentages do not add up to 100.
b
Non-Hispanic white.
c
Non-Hispanic black.
d
Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.

3. use of techniques to engage and retain
clients in treatment;

Most Treatment Services Offered
Are Not Evidence-Based

4. use of therapeutic community, cognitivebehavioral or other standardized treatment
orientation;

Most correctional facilities that offer addictionrelated services continue to employ approaches
not grounded in research, despite a considerable
body of evidence to guide effective treatment in
correctional settings. 4 In 2007, the National
Criminal Justice Treatment Practices survey
estimated the prevalence of evidence-based
practices (EBPs) of addiction treatment services
that are employed in correctional facilities. * The
survey included the following 13 evidence-based
practices: 5

5. a comprehensive approach to treatment and
ancillary needs;
6. addressing co-occurring disorders;
7. involvement of family in treatment;
8. a planned treatment duration of 90 days or
longer;

1. standardized risk assessment;

9. integration of multiple systems to optimize
care and outcomes;

2. standardized substance abuse assessment
and treatment matching;

10. continuing care or aftercare;
11. use of drug testing in treatment;
12. use of graduated sanctions; and

*

The design consisted of a mail survey of both
correctional administrators and treatment program
directors, who could report up to 13 or 15 EBPs,
respectively.

13. incentives to encourage progress.

-42-

Of these 13 evidence-based practices,
correctional administrators reported only
offering an average of 5.9; in local jails the
average was 1.6. Nearly two-thirds (64.7
percent) of the surveyed prisons, jails, and
probation/parole departments provided only
three or fewer of the 13 possible EBPs. 6

Table 5.4

Percent of Facilities Offering Evidence-Based Practices
in Prison- and Jail-Based Treatment Services as
Reported by Correctional Administrators
Federal/State
Evidence-Based
Prisons
Local Jails
(98)
(41)
Practices (EBPs)
Standardized substance
abuse assessment
60
51
Standardized
assessment/treatment
20
12
matching
Engagement techniques
36
24
Treatment approach
21
12
Comprehensive approach
84
90
Address co-occurring
disorders
50
32
Family involvement in
treatment
19
10
Planned duration greater
than 90 days
54
49
System integration
53
73
Continuing care/aftercare
48
32
Drug testing
32
34
Graduated sanctions
32
27
Incentives
81
54
EBPs per correctional
facility (mean)
5.9
1.6
Source: Friedmann, PD, Taxman, FS, & Henderson, CE (2007).

In addressing substance use disorders,
behavioral approaches are the most commonly
used interventions. Evidence-based behavioral
interventions include cognitive therapies that
teach coping and decision-making skills,
contingency management therapies that
encourage behavioral changes and motivational
therapies. 7 However, correctional facilities tend
to provide alcohol and other drug education or
low-intensive outpatient counseling sessions
rather than evidence-based, intensive treatment. 8
Services in local jails are even less intensive,
structured and accessible because of the high
turnover rate and short facility stay of jail
inmates. 9
Only half of administrators in state and federal
prisons and one-third in local jails report
addressing co-occurring disorders. The least
prevalent evidence-based practice reported by
administrators in prisons (19 percent) and local
jails (10 percent) is family involvement in
treatment. 10 (Table 5.4)

Limited Availability of Highly Trained
Staff

Table 5.5

Percent of Correctional Facilities Offering Addiction
Counseling by Type of Staffing

Most facilities that provide addiction counseling
report that they employ paid staff with at least a
bachelor’s degree to deliver these services. 11
One survey of inmates found a perceived lack of
understanding of substance use disorders and the
needs of substance-involved inmates among
correctional staff providing treatment services. 12

Use paid staff for
counseling
Use volunteer staff for
counseling
Ratio of patients to paid
staff
Employ psychologists or
other PhD level staff
Employ bachelor’s or
master’s level staff
Source: SAMHSA (2002).

The ratio of paid staff to those receiving
treatment varies from 7:1 in federal prisons to
25:1 in state prisons. Thirteen percent of federal
prisons, 24 percent of state prisons and 33
percent of local jails report using volunteer staff
for counseling. 13 (Table 5.5)

-43-

Federal
Prisons
(129)

State
Prisons
(1,183)

100

98

98

13

24

33

25:1

10:1

87

15

32

91

88

78

7:1

Local
Jails
(3,114)

Federal prisons report the highest
academic credentialing standards for
professional treatment providers in their
system. Eighty-seven percent of federal
correctional facilities that provide
addiction counseling services include
doctoral-level mental health
professionals on their clinical staff
compared to only 15 percent of state
prisons and 32 percent of local jails. * 14
(Table 5.5) Having an advanced
degree, however, does not mean that
such individuals are trained
appropriately in treating substance use
disorders. There currently is no
universal system in place to ensure
provider competency in specific
evidence-based practices. 15

Table 5.6

Duration of Addiction-Related Services Among
Non-Specialty Prisons and Jails Offering Such Services
Federal/State Prison
(74)
Percent
Percent
Offering
Offering
Service
> 90 Days

Local Jail
(57)
Percent
Percent
Offering
Offering
Service
> 90 Days

Therapeutic community
Segregated
19.5
74.8
26.2
Non-segregated
9.2
66.0
<1.0
Group counseling
Up to 4 hours/week
54.6
58.0
59.8
5-25 hours/week
46.0
72.9
21.3
≥26 hours/week
11.2
24.3
1.1
Drug/alcohol education
74.1
65.3
61.3
Relapse prevention group
44.5
62.0
50.7
Case management
6.9
40.7
22.8
Source: Taxman, FS, Perdoni, ML, & Harrison, LD (2007).

97.9
75.4
48.1
8.9
92.3
19.9
93.6
89.8

Treatment Duration Makes a
Difference
To be effective, addiction treatment typically
must provide a sufficient dose and duration to
make a difference. A growing body of evidence
suggests that better outcomes are associated with
treatment interventions that last at least 90
days. 17

The Treatment Gap in New York
Drug users, both in and out of prison, have a right to
access health care that should include drug dependence
treatment and harm reduction measures to reduce health
risks such as transmission of HIV and Hepatitis B and
C. Prison treatment programs should be available,
accessible, appropriate and of good quality. But in the
New York State prisons, drug treatment programs are
filled to capacity. Prisoners face long waiting lists for
treatment. Despite overwhelming evidence that
Medication-Assisted Therapy is the most effective
treatment for opioid dependence, the majority of New
York State prisoners dependent on heroin or other
opioids have no access to methadone or buprenorphine.
Between 1996 and 2005, 27 prisoners died of overdose
of illegal drugs in New York State prisons. 16

A study of data from the National Criminal
Justice Treatment Practices survey found that
while more than half of the counseling † , relapse
prevention and therapeutic community services
that exist in federal and state prisons were
available for more than 90 days, these programs
exist for the most part in half or fewer of nonspecialty prisons and jails ‡ and less than a
quarter of inmates have daily access to them. 18
(Table 5.6)

--Human Rights Watch, 2009

*

Information on the education and training standards
or requirements for treatment providers in
correctional settings is largely unavailable.
†
25 hours or less per week
‡
94 percent of all prisons and 100 percent of jails are
non-specialty facilities.
-44-

Methadone has been used for over 40 years as a
pharmacological treatment for opioid
addiction. 24 In addition to helping with
withdrawal symptoms during detoxification, the
medication prevents cravings and blocks the
euphoric effects of opiate use. 25 Buprenorphine
was approved by the FDA to treat opioid
addiction in 2002. 26 It provides moderate relief
from opioid withdrawal and has even less risk of
misuse and overdose than methadone. 27 Both
medications have been found to reduce health
problems related to heroin use such as infectious
disease transmission and overdose deaths. 28

Few Inmates Have Access to
Pharmacological Therapy
Despite evidence of efficacy, pharmacological
therapies remain under-utilized by the
corrections system. 19
Researchers estimate that as few as 1,600
prisoners in the country are receiving methadone
treatment and no more than 150 receive
buprenorphine--an evidence-based
pharmacological treatment for opioid
dependence. Forty-three percent of medical
directors in prisons and jails report that they do
not believe or do not know whether methadone
is appropriate for treating inmates with
addiction. Fifty-nine percent feel similarly
about buprenorphine. Department of
Corrections medical directors cite preferences
for drug-free detoxification, security concerns,
administrative opposition and prohibitive cost as
the primary reasons they do not provide opioid
replacement therapy (ORT). 20

In a randomized clinical trial, * ORT was shown
to be an effective treatment for opioid-addicted
inmates. Six months following release from
prison, inmates who started methadone
treatment before leaving prison and were
referred to counseling and a methadone clinic
upon their release were less likely to commit
new crimes and less likely to resume their
substance use than their peers who only received
counseling referrals (28 percent of methadone
patients tested positive for opioids and 58
percent tested positive for cocaine compared to
65 percent and 75 percent, respectively, of
referral-only patients). Methadone patients
spent, on average, more than 100 days in
community-based treatment compared to their
peers who spent only 14 days. Methadone
patients also reported participating in fewer days
of criminal activity than their peers (an average
of 29 days vs. 57 days). 29

Only 28 medical directors of the Departments of
Corrections (DOC) of 49 states, the federal
government and the District of Columbia report
that they provide methadone to any of their
inmate; over half of those who offer this therapy
exclusively use it for pregnant women, for acute
opiate withdrawal or for chronic pain
management. Buprenorphine is only offered in
seven corrections departments nationwide. 21
Jails are almost four times more likely than
prisons to offer pharmacotherapy for addiction,
but only a third of jails provide such treatment. 22

Another clinical trial compared the effectiveness
of buprenorphine to methadone maintenance for
opioid-dependent jail inmates. The results of the
study indicate that the outcomes of
buprenorphine and methadone treatment
initiated in a jail setting are similar in most
respects, and that decisions about which to use
(including using both) may be based on clinical
and administrative considerations in specific
jurisdictions. Buprenorphine did appear to be
more effective than methadone in that there was
greater expressed interest and willingness of jail

Referrals for ORT treatment upon release also
are infrequent. Only 23 corrections departments
refer ex-convicts to methadone clinics and just
15 make referrals to buprenorphine providers.
Limited partnerships with community providers
licensed to provide these therapies, preferences
for drug-free detoxification and focus on inmate
health during incarceration rather than upon
release were the primary reasons given for why
inmates did not receive referrals upon their
release. 23

*

The study was limited to male inmates in a
Baltimore-based prison facility, limiting the
generalizability of these findings.

-45-

inmates who were not in methadone treatment to
continue buprenorphine in the community after
release. However, Suboxone (buprenorphine) is
about 10 times as expensive as generic
methadone. 30

Tobacco Addiction Largely Untreated
State-of-the-art treatment for substance use
disorders calls for addressing patients’ use of all
addictive substances including tobacco. 38 In
spite of the significant health consequences of
tobacco use and exposure, fewer prevention and
cessation resources are allocated to this threat to
the public health in the corrections system than
to other drug use. 39

Another pharmacological therapy for the
treatment of SUDs is naltrexone. Naltrexone
dampens the perceived reward of drinking by
blocking opioid receptors. 31 Naltroxene also
blocks the rewarding effects of opiate use and is
used to treat opioid addiction. 32 With naltrexone
therapy, there are no opiate-related side effects,
no overdose risks and no possibility for
diversion. 33 Oral naltrexone as approved by the
FDA to treat alcohol use disorders in 1984;
injectable naltrexone was approved by the FDA
in 2006 as an extended release medication given
as a monthly injection. 34

One survey of 500 correctional facilities * -including jails, prisons and juvenile facilities-found that 63 percent of the facilities reported
that inmates’ smoking and nicotine dependence
are assessed at intake; however, more than 80
percent of respondents reported that their
facilities had no tobacco cessation programs at
all. Respondents to the survey also estimated
that at least three-quarters of inmates who stop
smoking in prison or jail end up resuming
smoking upon release. Particularly discouraging
was that nearly half of the respondents (44
percent) said that they did not think it would be
possible to reduce tobacco use in correctional
facilities, even given sufficient resources. 40

CASA could find no evidence of the extent to
which naltrexone is used in the corrections
system. A meta-analysis of nine randomized,
placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy
of naltrexone as a treatment for alcohol
addiction found that compared to patients taking
placebos, those taking naltrexone were less
likely to return to drinking heavily during the
study periods, had significantly fewer drinking
days during the study periods and were likelier
to remain abstinent. 35 In a randomized,
controlled, clinical trial of probationers with a
history of opiate addiction, 26 percent of
parolees who received standard parole
supervision and naltrexone relapsed and were
reincarcerated within six months following the
their release compared with 56 percent of those
who received standard parole supervision but
not naltrexone. 36

Correctional health care practitioners and
others need to see tobacco control as an
important, high-profile public health issue with
the same sort of status as HIV or tuberculosis.
Otherwise, it will continue to get the short end
of the attention and health care resources. 41

Since the mid-1980s, policies regarding tobacco
use in prisons and jails have become more
restrictive. 42 A 2007 survey of 52 † corrections
departments found that 60 percent reported total
tobacco bans on prison grounds; another 27
percent reported only an indoor ban on tobacco
use. 43 Since the survey’s publication, additional
states have begun or completed the transition to
tobacco-free environments. 44

The negative stigma associated with
pharmacological therapies, misperceptions about
the chronic nature of addiction and incorrect
associations between curing dependence and
forced detoxification prevent many prisoners
nationwide from benefitting from these
treatments. 37

*

Accredited by the National Commission on
Correctional Health Care.
†
50 state departments, the District of Columbia and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
-46-

respiratory illness and Hepatitis A * as well as
those associated with exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke--and their associated costs, and
reduces cigarette-related fires and smokingrelated violence via intentional burns. 55

Even most inmates housed in tobacco-free
facilities are expected to quit on their own, “cold
turkey.” 45 This may be because tobacco bans
often are accompanied by the termination of
tobacco cessation programming 46 in the
mistaken belief that they no longer are needed.

Women Need Tailored Treatment

Despite the increase in tobacco-free correctional
facilities, tobacco products remain prevalent. 47
In many states, cigarettes are a high-priced
commodity and thus a currency in the prison
environment. 48 In some cases, a black market
has arisen where control of the market rests
within the hands of prison staff rather than the
inmate population, resulting in reduced security
and increased institutional corruption. 49
Because staffing at most correctional facilities is
limited, monitoring smoking behavior among
inmates and guards is difficult. 50

Although female inmates are likelier to receive
treatment for substance use disorders than male
inmates, there is no evidence to suggest that the
treatment they receive is tailored to their
needs. 56
Many women begin and continue to use drugs in
different ways and for different reasons than
men; for example, women’s drug use is often
triggered by negative experiences or stress or
motivated by anxiety or depression. 57 Women
have been found to be more likely to report
using drugs to alleviate emotional or physical
pain or for social reasons rather than to engage
in pleasure seeking behavior, which is more
commonly cited by men. 58 This is not
surprising since women with a history of abuse
are three times likelier than other women to have
an alcohol use disorder during their lifetime and
four times likelier to have a drug use disorder. 59

In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence
demonstrating that pharmacological treatment
for addiction has greater health and social
benefits than abstinence-only policies, many
prison directors are philosophically opposed to
treating substance use… These trends
contribute to high re-incarceration rates and
have detrimental impacts on community
health...changing these policies may require an
enormous cultural shift within correctional
systems. 51

While interventions tailored to the specifics of
women’s problems can reduce women’s
involvement in substance-related crime, 60 most
treatment options are modeled on men’s
experiences with addiction. 61 Women whose
addiction is tied to prior incidents of abuse may
be less inclined to participate actively in group
counseling programs or 12-step programs that
emphasize personal disclosure. 62 Genderspecific treatment programs may provide a safer
environment for survivors of sexual abuse and
domestic violence. 63 The research base suggests
that these programs should focus on
empowerment, support, skill building and
identifying strengths rather than confrontation. 64

--Amy Nunn ScD, MS
Assistant Professor of Medicine (Research) at
the Warren Alpert Medical School
of Brown University

Reducing tobacco use in the correctional system
is essential to address a costly public health
threat. It also is important because smoking is
related to an increased risk of relapse for alcohol
addiction, 52 putting inmates at greater risk of
recidivism. 53 Further, research has
demonstrated that smoking cessation does not
adversely affect alcohol and other drug
treatment outcomes. 54 Converting jails and
prisons to tobacco-free facilities reduces the rate
of smoking-related health problems--such as

Incorporating the appropriate ancillary services
into treatment programs serving women also is
important. Incarcerated women are more likely
*

Acquired via saliva when tobacco products are
shared.

-47-

than their male peers to need support services in
the form of medical and mental health care,
victim services, and--for women offenders in
community treatment reentry programs or in lieu
of incarceration--childcare, housing and
employment assistance. 65 If trauma-specific
services are unavailable, researchers recommend
a trauma-informed approach to treatment in
which providers have been educated on the
impact that abuse can have on women’s lives
and treatment success. 66 Interventions that
include family components or activities that
focus on building healthy familial and peer
relationships also have been associated with
reduced reoffending among women. 67

Few Receive Treatment in
Specialized Settings
Specialized units segregated from the general
prison population, such as therapeutic
communities, can produce better outcomes, as
measured by drug use and arrests post-release,
at least in part because they prevent the
“prison culture” from derailing the recovery
process. * 68 The existence of specialized
units does not, however, necessarily mean
that quality care is offered.
A 2002 analysis of national data (1997) by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) † found that 94
percent of federal prisons, 56 percent of state
prisons and 33 percent of jails reported that they
provided some type of treatment for substance
use disorders ‡ with an average daily attendance
of approximately 147,000 inmates. Only a small

percentage of the inmate population had access
to such services on a daily basis. § 69 In
correctional facilities that provided treatment for
substance use disorders, the majority delivered
their services within the general population
setting of their facilities (94 percent in federal
prisons, 82 percent in state prisons and 79
percent in local jails). In facilities that offered
such services, addiction treatment was offered in
specialized treatment units in 41 percent of
federal facilities, 33 percent of state facilities
and 31 percent of local facilities. 70 (Table 5.7)
Table 5.7

Treatment for Substance Use Disorders by Settings
Among Correctional Facilities Offering Such Services
(1997a)
Federal
Prisons
(129)

State
Prisons
(1,183)

Percent offering
within the general
94
82
correctional
population
Percent offering in
41
33
specialized units
Percent offering in a
hospital or
6
6
psychiatric unit
Source: SAMHSA (2002).
a
The most recent data provided by SAMSHA.

Local
Jails
(3,114)

By 2000, only 200 of the 1,208 federal and state
confinement facilities (16.6 percent) reported
offering specialized alcohol and/or other drug
treatment, ** up from 192 in 1995. 71
Setting up treatment programs in local jails has
been particularly difficult because the population
of jail inmates--including those awaiting trial or
sentencing or those serving a sentence of less

*

To varying degrees, incarcerated offenders become
socialized to the inmate subculture that values the
solidarity among fellow inmates and the resistance of
official correctional goals (Sykes & Messinger, 1960).
The threat of peer violence and the deprivation of
basic needs also force many inmates to seek
protection and privileges through gang affiliation
(Compton & Meacham, 2005; Kalinich & Stojkovic,
1985; Valdez, 2009). This climate is not conducive
to effective treatment.
†
The most recent data provided by SAMSHA.
‡
Includes services such as detoxification, group or
individual counseling, rehabilitation, and methadone
or other pharmaceutical therapies.

§

The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices
(NCJTP) survey is a nationally representative survey
of correctional agencies (e.g., prisons, jails and
probation and parole) conducted in 2005 by a
consortium of researchers to understand the breadth
and availability of drug treatment services in the
criminal justice system.
**
In 2000, there were 84 federal, 1,320 state and 264
private correctional facilities.
-48-

79
31
8

than one year--is largely transient. * 72 Although
local jails may not be ideal settings to deliver the
long-term and intensive interventions that
effective treatment of incarcerated offenders
require, 73 there are several examples of
successful jail-based treatment programs, such
as those models implemented and evaluated in
Linn County, Oregon, and Monroe County, New
York, that are worthy of emulating. 74

programs; occupational injuries related to
assaults are almost 10 times less likely to occur
in the treatment facilities. 75

Treatment for Co-Occurring
Disorders
In the inmate population, several other health
conditions frequently co-occur with substance
use disorders: mental illness, HIV/AIDS,
Hepatitis C and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder (FASD). Among incarcerated
substance-involved veterans, Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) is likely to co-occur.
Progress has been made in addressing
HIV/AIDS, and most state adult correctional
facilities screen for Hepatitis C--more than twothirds have policies to test and treat this
condition. 77 However, the financial and human
resources required for effective treatment of cooccurring mental health disorders and to address
the needs of those with FASD and PTSD to date
largely have been unavailable in the criminal
justice system. 78

Monroe County, New York provides

treatment for substance use disorders to
nonviolent offenders who volunteer to
participate. Since offenders do not receive
reduced sentences or special perks for
participating in the program, a key incentive to
volunteer is their desire to recover. The
program is based on a 12-step model that
focuses on an offender’s recognition of his/her
addiction and desire to control it. Offenders
must participate in daily group counseling
sessions for 60 to 90 days; they have access to a
personal counselor and receive follow-up
treatment after their release. More than half (56
percent) of participants were not arrested during
the year following their release from jail
compared to 26 percent of offenders in a
comparison group. † Half of the comparison
group was rearrested at least twice during the
year following their release compared to 21
percent of the treatment group. Monroe County
officials estimate the reductions in recidivism
from the program equal approximately $1.5
million in savings over one year. 76

Mental Health Treatment Limited
The correctional system has become one of the
largest systems housing the mentally ill in the
country, in part driven by substance use
disorders and co-occurring mental health
conditions. 79 Although over 550,000 prison and
jail inmates in 2006 (24.4 percent) had a
substance use disorder and a co-occurring
mental health problem, 80 only one-half of the
prisons and one-third of the jails surveyed in
2007 ‡ report addressing co-occurring disorders
in any way in their addiction-related services. 81

The benefits of treatment in specialized setting
extend beyond inmates themselves. In
correctional facilities where therapeutic
community treatment occurs, correctional staff
report a less stressful job environment, a higher
level of job satisfaction, lower rates of staff sick
leave, less inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff
assault and less disruptive behavior among
inmates. Violent behavior is more then twice as
likely to occur among inmates in the general
population compared with those in treatment

†

Since program participation is voluntary, offenders
were not able to be randomly assigned to treatment
and comparison groups. Researchers randomly
selected comparison group participants from inmates
who were released during the same periods as the
study groups and who shared similar sociological and
offender characteristics as the treatment group, but
who did not volunteer for treatment.
‡
The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices
(NCJTP) survey.

*

Urban jails routinely are used to house violators of
probation, parole or bail bond; absconders from
court-managed diversion programs; illegal
immigrants; and juveniles with pending disposition.
-49-

from 9.4 percent in 2001 to 4.0 percent in 2006.
During this period, 1,154 state inmates died
from AIDS. 90

A quarter (24 percent) of federal inmates with
mental health problems received some type of
treatment since their current incarceration, as did
34 percent of state inmates with mental health
problems and 18 percent of local jail inmates in
need. The most common form of intervention is
the use of prescribed medications (20 percent
among treated federal inmates, 27 percent
among treated state inmates and 15 percent
among treated local jail inmates). 82

In 2004, 77 percent of inmates were tested for
HIV in federal prisons, up from 70 percent in
1997; 69 percent were tested in state prisons, up
from 59 percent. 91 In 2002, 19 percent were
tested in local jails, up from 18 percent in
1996. 92 In 2006, 21 states reported testing all
inmates for HIV, either when the were admitted
or sometime during their time in custody.
Federal prisons and forty-seven states reported
testing inmates if they requested such a test or if
they had HIV-related symptoms; federal prisons
and forty states reported testing inmates if they
were involved in an incident where they were
exposed to a possible HIV transmission. Federal
prisons and 16 states reported that they test
inmates in “high-risk” groups. 93

A key feature of effective treatment is
specialized assessment that leads to a reliable
psychiatric diagnosis and addresses differences
between offenders with personality disorders
and those with severe mental illnesses. 83
Inmates with diagnosed co-occurring mental
health and substance use disorders require an
integrated treatment approach including
behavioral therapies of demonstrated
effectiveness--such as cognitive-behavioral
therapy, contingency management or
involvement in a specialized therapeutic
community, 84 pharmacological therapies where
appropriate and mutual support programs as
adjuncts to treatment. 85

Although HIV-risk behaviors occur prior to and
during incarceration, 94 preventive and
therapeutic interventions in prison have proven
useful in reducing both risk behaviors and
recidivism. 95 The long term efficacy of these
efforts is meaningful, however, only if they
include prison-based treatment programs that
help inmates recover from addiction, reduce
their HIV-risk behaviors and provide HIV/AIDS
health care and counseling services (that meet
national guidelines for corrections-based
HIV/AIDS interventions) for those already
infected. 96

A survey of 41 American state correctional
systems found that 85 percent of responding
systems reported screening inmates for mental
health symptoms at intake. Less than half (18 of
41) reported that the number of mental healthrelated therapists they had was adequate for the
identified population. 86
Most local jails do not offer a comprehensive
range of mental health services; these
institutions tend to focus on screening and
evaluation for suicide prevention. 87 Even if
most jail detainees and inmates return to their
communities in a few weeks or months, delays
in treatment can exacerbate mental health and/or
substance use disorders. 88

Providing linkages between correction-based
services and community-based services is an
effective tool for HIV prevention among jail
inmates. 97 Although prevention programs have
been developed specifically for prison and jail
populations, these programs have not been
widely implemented. 98

Most Facilities Address Hepatitis C
Progress in Addressing HIV/AIDS
Another infectious disease that has wreaked
havoc among inmates with substance use
disorders is Hepatitis C, a viral disease that
attacks the liver and can cause cirrhosis of the
liver, cancer, liver failure and death. Hepatitis C
is spread through infected blood, most

AIDS was the fourth leading cause of death
among inmates of state prisons between 2001
and 2004, behind heart disease, cancer and liver
diseases. 89 The proportion of state inmate
deaths caused by AIDS has decreased steadily
-50-

commonly in shared needles used to inject
drugs.

Veterans Treatment Court
The first Veterans Treatment Court was started in
Buffalo, New York in January 2008 to address the
associated problems of addiction and crime in a
manner that is sympathetic to the difficulty
veterans often have transitioning back to civilian
life. Since then the program has spread to other
counties and states across the nation. The court
operates in a similar manner to other drug courts.
Non-violent offenders charged with alcohol or
drug related crimes are diverted from the
traditional court system and their sentences are
replaced with a period of treatment provided by
the Veteran’s Medical Center. The defendant
maintains contact with both the court and a
veteran mentor during that time. Mentors provide
support and help to make sure the judge’s orders
are carried out. As with most drug courts,
veterans have their records sealed upon
completion of the program. 105

Nearly eight in 10 state prison facilities reported
screening inmates for Hepatitis C either by
testing all at some time, testing at admission,
testing a random sample, testing high-risk
inmates, testing upon inmate request or testing
upon medical indication. Among the 70 percent
of facilities that tested a targeted group, a third
of the tests were confirmed positive; among nine
percent of facilities that tested more broadly,
slightly more than a quarter of all tests were
confirmed positive. 99
More than two-thirds (70 percent) of state
facilities reported that they had a policy to treat
inmates for Hepatitis C; most commonly they
reported that their policy was to treat those
Hepatitis C positive inmates for whom treatment
was recommended or those at the greatest risk
rather than all positive inmates. Twenty-seven
percent of facilities reported not having a
Hepatitis C treatment policy. 100

Special Problems of Veterans
Returnees with substance use and addictionrelated problems and co-occurring PTSD and
other mental health problems who are
discharged without treatment or are undiagnosed
run significant risk of involvement with the
justice system, further isolating them from
reintegration and delaying treatment. These
problems have prompted the creation of several
veterans’ drug treatment courts designed to meet
the addiction related needs of veterans and
reduce future contact with the justice system. 106

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)
Rarely Addressed
The criminal courts rarely take FASD into
account or consider it a mitigating factor in a
crime when determining a defendant’s
culpability. 101 This is despite the fact that a
person with FASD may not be capable of
controlling his or her actions, providing an
accurate account of his or her criminal behavior
or its consequences, or fully comprehending the
Miranda warnings should he or she be
arrested. 102

Other Components of Effective
Treatment
A considerable body of evidence demonstrates
the importance of access to educational
opportunities to help reduce recidivism. 107
Similarly, strong evidence exists that religious or
spiritually-based programs are effective as
adjuncts to treatment in fostering pro-social
values and lifestyles and contributing to the
reduction of recidivism. 108 Unfortunately, the
rate of participation in education and training
services has declined in the nation’s prisons and
jails. More inmates are involved in volunteer

Justice system personnel are not well trained to
address the needs of offenders with FASD. 103
Appropriate responses include recognizing
FASD as a mitigating or even exculpatory factor
in criminal cases, developing alternative
sentencing options for those suffering from these
disorders and providing individuals with FASD
appropriate services and support at every point
in the criminal justice process, from arrest to
imprisonment to reentry. 104

-51-

space that is available in prisons for educational
programs; and third, jail inmates lack the
incentives of parole and good-time credit toward
sentence reductions available to their prison
inmate counterparts. 112

led spiritually-based programs, but fewer trained
chaplains are available to them. 109

Less Education and Training Available to
Inmates

Most corrections-based college programs are
offered in federal and state prisons; only 3.4
percent of local jails offer one or more collegelevel courses. 113 Prison and jail education
programs are for the most part financed by the
state, but some states also use Title I federal
funding, which includes Perkins Grants and
Youthful Offender Grants, as well as private
funds. 114

Educational and job training programs for prison
and jail inmates can help them secure
employment after release, build self-esteem and
increase literacy skills. 110 Some type of
educational programming is available in all
federal prisons and most state and private
prisons, 111 but the rate of participation has been
declining since 1991, due to an expanding
inmate population. The percentage of federal
prison inmates who report participating in
education or vocational programs while confined
fell from 67 percent in 1996 to 57 percent in
2006. The participation rate among state
inmates also declined from 57 percent in 1996 to
45 percent in 2006. Participation in educational
programs is extremely low in local jails. The
percentage of jail inmates who report
participating in educational or vocational
services declined from 14 percent in 1996 to 12
percent in 2006. (Figure 5.A)

The elimination of the Pell Grant for the higher
education of state and federal prison inmates in
1994 was a devastating blow to the effort to help
reduce recidivism through education. The Pell
Grant is a federal grant subsidizing college
education costs for students from low-income
families; it extended to inmates participating in a
prison-based post-secondary education. 115 In
1994, as public sentiments turned more punitive
toward criminal offenders, incarcerated
offenders were excluded from the program. The
inmate exclusion does not apply to students
incarcerated in local jails, or to those under
supervision in halfway houses, home detention
or serving weekend sentences. 116 A survey of
state prison systems revealed that the number of
prison systems offering college education
programs decreased from 82.6 percent in 19941995 to 63.0 percent in 1995-1996. 117

Figure 5.A

Percent of Inmates Participating in
Educational or Vocational Programs
1996
2006

67
57

57
45

14

Federal Prisons

State Prisons

A federal or state drug conviction also can
disqualify a student for other federal student aid *
if the conviction occurs during a period of
enrollment for which the student is receiving
aid. 118 During academic year 2003-2004 alone,
about 41,000 applicants were disqualified from
receiving federal postsecondary education loans
and grants because of drug convictions. 119

12

Local Jails

Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in
Federal Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey
of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1991 and
2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and 2002)
[Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports,
Prisoners in (1996 and 2006).

The disparity between prisons and jails in the
availability of educational programs has at least
three major causes. First, jails serve short-term
populations; second, they often do not have the

*

-52-

Title IV.

based treatment program including social
support and spiritual program components with
participants of a similar program that included
social support components only. Inmates
participating in the spiritually-oriented program
showed a gradual reduction in anxiety,
depression and hostility--all factors related to
substance use--and a greater sense of coherence
and meaning in their lives than those
participating in the program without spiritual
components. 125

Increased Participation in Religious and
Spiritually-Based Programs
CASA’s analysis found that participation in
religious activities has increased in recent years
among substance-involved prison inmates. In
2006, 56.4 percent of substance-involved prison
and jail inmates participated in religious
activities in the past week. In 2006, over half of
federal (54.8 percent) and state (55.1 percent)
inmates did so, up from 1996 (39.0 percent and
31.1 percent, respectively.) * 120

Random Drug Testing

Since the 1990s, chaplain positions in prisons
and jails have been declining in states because of
expense and the difficulty of meeting the
growing diverse religious needs of inmates
under a professional chaplaincy. This trend has
encouraged the involvement of volunteers to
provide religious services to inmates, and the
growth of correction-community alliances which
combine criminal justice resources with
religious organizations and local church
volunteers. 121

Although assuring abstinence during
incarceration should not be confused with
treatment, random drug testing has the potential
to decrease drug use. 126 Treatment of inmates
typically involves routine drug tests
accompanied by the use of sanctions to facilitate
behavior change. Random drug testing among
inmates is not employed uniformly across the
country. 127
Smuggling of illegal addictive substances into
prisons remains a significant disruption to
correctional management. Officers often accept
drug trafficking and consumption as inevitable
features of the inmates’ world. Illicit substances
generally are brought into the prison or jail
through corrupt staff, friends and family during
visits or in the prisoners’ mail. 128

Although research has demonstrated that
religiosity and spirituality when combined with
evidence-based treatment are more effective
than either alone and are related to less drug use
among incarcerated offenders, 122 there is little
published information on the impact of faithbased programs on substance-involved inmates
in the United States. One religious program that
has been evaluated is The Prison Fellowship
which offers weekly Bible classes to inmates; 123
however, the study showed no difference in the
median time to re-arrest or re-incarceration
between those participating in the Prison
Fellowship program and other inmates.
Although program participants with higher
levels of participation in Bible studies were less
likely to be rearrested in years two and three
post-release, the effects diminished over time.
The program hosted more than 57,000 in-prison
Bible study meetings in 2004, with a monthly
attendance of more than 180,000 inmates. 124

Between 1999 and 2001, the California
Department of Corrections conducted a pilot
program at four institutions that included
random drug testing (urinalysis) and systematic
interdiction practices including drug detecting
equipment and K-9 teams. Drug interdiction
measures included the use of drug-detecting K-9
teams and drug detecting equipment; for-cause
urine tests were required of the inmates if drugs
were detected. Standard drug interdiction
procedures (monitoring of phone calls, visiting
areas, and inmate trust accounts and for-cause
urine tests) were employed at all sites. Three of
the sites were designated intervention sites,
while the fourth was designated a comparison
site. The baseline prevalence of drug use of 8.9
percent was reduced to 2.1 percent by the end of
the study. Analysis indicated that random drug

An Israeli study compared emotional and
behavioral changes in participants of a prison*

No comparative data available for jails.
-53-

the patient’s substance-related problem and
treatment needs, including assessment of cooccurring physical and mental health or
behavioral problems that need to be addressed in
the course of treatment. Services must then be
tailored to the individual needs of criminal
justice patients based on their demographic
characteristics, problem severity, and levels of
motivation and social support. 132

tests accounted for most of the reduction in drug
use. 129

Some Inmates Without Substance
Use Disorders Receive Treatment
and Adjunct Services
In 2006, 2.9 percent (23,498) of federal, state
and local inmates who do not meet clinical
criteria for substance use disorders received
some type of addiction treatment while
incarcerated, either in residential units, by
professional counselors or through maintenance
therapy; 11.1 percent (88,889) participated in
mutual support/peer counseling or educational
services. While inmates who do not yet meet
clinical criteria for substance use disorders may
benefit from some type of intervention,
comprehensive screenings and assessments are
critical in order to link inmates to appropriate
and effective care and services, and to assure
appropriate use of scarce resources.

Careful monitoring of patients’ substance use
and relapse episodes is necessary to intervene
quickly and effectively, including drug tests,
rewards and sanctions. Rewards and sanctions
work best when they are perceived to be fair and
when they immediately follow the targeted
behavior. 133
Treatment approaches should take into account
the attitudes and beliefs that are associated both
with substance use and criminal behavior and
provide cognitive skills training to help patients
improve their judgment, decision making and
coping skills. 134

Practice Guidelines Are Available
for Addiction Treatment in the
Correctional System

Best practice coordinates treatment goals with
correctional planning and supervision and
includes links to community-based treatment
and other reentry assistance services such as
housing, childcare, medical and psychiatric
services, social support services and vocational
and employment assistance. Offenders who
receive a full course of evidence-based treatment
(in prison or in lieu of incarceration) and then
continue with effective community-based
treatment and recovery services upon reentry
have the best outcomes including reduced
relapse and recidivism rates. 135

Effective treatment of substance use disorders
among inmates is based on recognition that
addiction is a chronic disease requiring a disease
management approach. According to the
National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Principles of
Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice
Populations, the importance of monitoring and
managing offenders’ substance use over the long
term is no different than it is for the general
population. 130

Reflecting this approach, a substantial body of
professional guidelines and standards dating
back almost two decades has been developed by
occupational societies and scientific agencies for
providing addiction treatment in prisons and
jails: (See Appendix B)

A chronic care management approach includes
ongoing symptom management by a team of
health professionals, and provides the assistance
of qualified recovery supports to help patients
enact and maintain lifestyle changes. This
approach is designed to increase patients’
knowledge, skills and confidence in managing
their illnesses. 131

•

The first step in the treatment process is a
thorough assessment of the nature and extent of

-54-

In 1990, the American Correctional
Association (ACA), in cooperation with the
Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections, published Standards for Adult

Correctional Institutions (third edition) *
recommending policies and procedures for
clinical management of inmates with
substance use disorders. 136
•

•

•

Essential Elements of a Chronic Care
Management Approach to Inmates
with Substance Use Disorders †
Comprehensive assessment of:
• Substance use and other health and mental
health conditions by trained health care
professionals
• Education/training, housing, social and
family support needs

In 1991, the National Institute of
Corrections, through its National Task Force
on Correctional Substance Abuse Strategies,
released the report Intervening with
Substance-Abusing Offenders: A
Framework for Action, which included
many specific recommendations for
identifying the substance use disorders of
offenders, providing effective treatment and
support services, and evaluating their
impact. 137

Individualized treatment plan including:
• Appropriate behavioral and
pharmacological therapies
• Treatment for co-occurring health and
mental health conditions
• Education/training, housing, social and
family support needs
• Patient education in disease management
• Correctional goals
• Re-entry and aftercare

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT) at the U.S. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) first published guidelines for
establishing treatment programs for
substance use disorders in prisons in
1993. 138 CSAT also has published a series
of Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP)
reports offering best-practice guidelines for
the treatment of substance use disorders
among offenders. 139

Patient monitoring for compliance with
treatment plan; use of prompt rewards and
sanctions.

One mandated accreditation has been developed
for the provision of opioid treatment in prisons
and jails. Federal rule 42 CFR Part 8, which
went into effect in March 2001, requires that all
treatment providers who treat opioid addiction
with opioid drugs be accredited by certifying
bodies approved by SAMHSA. The law also
includes a set of federal opioid treatment
standards covering administrative and
organizational structure; quality improvement;
staff credentials; patient admission criteria;
required services; record-keeping; patient
confidentiality; medication administration,
dispensing and use; and interim maintenance
treatment. 143

In 2006, the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA) joined the enterprise of
providing guidance to corrections-based
treatment providers and formulated
research-based principles for the effective
treatment of offenders with substance use
disorders. 140

The essential elements of these multiple sets of
standards are summarized in the following text
box. No mechanism has been put in place,
however, to ensure use of these guidelines and
standards. Because they essentially are nonbinding recommendations, their impact on the
planning and delivery of addiction treatment
services in America’s prisons and jails appears
to be minimal 141 --frequently ignored by state
legislatures and sparsely implemented by
correctional authorities. 142
*

In 2004, SAMHSA granted the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care
†

Drawn from recommended guidelines and standards
developed by the American Correctional Association,
the National Institute of Corrections, the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) at the U.S.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

Updated in 2003.
-55-

(NCCHC) the authority to accredit these
programs. As of 2009, there were five such
accredited programs in state and federal
prisons. 144 NCCHC has become the only
approved accreditation body specialized in
correctional settings. 145 Although evaluations of
opioid treatment program accreditation have
been released, 146 none directly addresses such
programs in correctional settings.
In order to translate scientific knowledge into
practice, Physicians and Lawyers for National
Drug Policy in partnership with The National
Judicial College released in 2008 a resource
guide of evidence-based approaches for the
justice system for addressing alcohol and other
drug problems in the offender population. They
also have developed a related training program.
These products are designed to improve
knowledge and practice among judges, lawyers,
probation and parole officers and other court
personnel and help link them to health
professionals, treatment programs, mutualsupport programs, specialty treatment courts and
other related resources. 147

-56-

Chapter VI
Reentry of Substance-Involved Inmates
Upon release, incarcerated offenders who have
substance use disorders (SUDs) require effective
treatment and/or aftercare, including long term
disease management, depending on the severity
of their illness. Those who engage in risky
substance use but do not yet meet criteria for
SUDs will require interventions to reduce such
behavior. Many also will require help for other
co-occurring health problems and assistance in
education, training and employment, and with
housing and other family and social services.
Conditionally released offenders * are twice as
likely as members of the general population age
18 and over to be either current users of illicit
drugs or binge drinkers (55.7 percent vs. 27.5
percent), and four times likelier to meet clinical
criteria for a substance use disorder (36.6
percent vs. 9.0 percent). † ‡ (Figure 6.A)
Conditionally released offenders with SUDs are
likelier than those who do not have such
disorders to be in poor health, unemployed and
on public assistance, and poorly educated.

Figure 6.A

Percent of Conditionally Released
Offenders* and the General
Population with Substance Misuse and
Dependence
55.7
27.5

36.6
9.0

Binge Drink and/or Use Illicit
Clinical Substance Use
Drugs
Disorder
Conditionally Released Offenders
General Population
* On parole, supervised release or other restricted release
from state or federal prison.
Source: CASA analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) (2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and
older), comparing substance use among those w ho report
being on conditional release to that of those w ho report never
having been on conditional release at any time during the 12
months prior to the survey.

Aftercare programs should include community
supervision, integrated services, case
management and graduated sanctions. To assure
that these practices are implemented effectively,
training of probation and parole officers also is
essential.
Despite the enormous treatment gap and failure
to provide a comprehensive approach to
aftercare, conditionally released offenders with
SUDs are likelier than individuals in the general
*

Ages 18 and older, on parole, supervised release or
other restricted release from state or federal prison.
†
Unless otherwise noted in the chapter, percentage
and numerical estimates are either drawn directly
from or based on CASA’s analysis of the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 2006
[Data file]. See Appendix A, Methodology.
‡
Note that the 9.0 percent refers to the general
population who had not been incarcerated. This
percent differs from the 9.1 percent presented in
Chapter IV which includes those who had been
incarcerated.
-57-

drinkers ‡ compared with 24.3 percent in the
general population. § Over two-fifths (44.6
percent) of the 1.6 million conditionally released
offenders reported having used illicit drugs
during the previous year as compared to 13.6
percent of the general population. Nearly onethird (32.0 percent) of conditionally released
offenders had used illicit drugs in the past 30
days compared with 7.9 percent of the general
population. Conditionally released offenders
were twice as likely as members of the general
population to be either current users of illicit
drugs or binge drinkers (55.7 percent vs. 27.5
percent). (Table 6.1)

population to have received treatment in the past
year (35.4 percent vs. 6.7 percent).

The Profile of Released Inmates
There is no national data set that provides
information on the characteristics and treatment
needs of all released offenders. The closest
proxy is the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) which identifies the noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and older
who have been conditionally released from
prison--on parole, supervised release or other
restricted release--at any time during the 12
months prior to the survey. No data are
available on those released unconditionally
from prisons--about 25 percent of released
offenders 1 --or those released from local jails.
The population of released offenders has been
growing. Between 1998--the year CASA
published its original Behind Bars report--and
2006, the parole population alone grew by 13.2
percent. 2 In 2006, an estimated 1.6 million 3
individuals age 18 and over had been
conditionally released * from prison and were in
the process of reentry and reintegration after
having served a prison term of at least one
†
year.

Conditionally Released Offenders Have
High Rates of Substance Misuse
Offenders who have been conditionally released
from prison have much higher rates of binge
drinking and other drug use than the general
population. In 2006, 45.8 percent of
conditionally released offenders were binge
*

This analysis of the NSDUH includes the
population aged 18 and over. These recently released
prison inmates do not include and should not be
confused with the 2.2 million probationers, who are
adult offenders whom courts place on community
supervision generally in lieu of incarceration (Glaze
& Bonczar, 2007).
†
Characteristics of conditionally released offenders
derived from the NSDUH cannot be compared with
characteristics of inmates presented in Chapter III
and derived from the prison and jail inmate surveys
because they do not contain comparable variables.

Table 6.1

Percent of Offenders Conditionally Releaseda
from Prison and of the General Population,
by Substance Misuse
General
Population

Released
Offenders

Binge drinking in
24.3
45.8
past 30 daysb
Used illicit drugs in
past 12 months
13.6
44.6
Used illicit drugs in
past 30 days
7.9
32.0
Used illicit drugs or
engaged in binge
27.5
55.7
drinking in past 30
days
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) (2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and
older), comparing substance use among those who report being
on conditional release to that of those who report never having
been on conditional release at any time during the 12 months
prior to the survey.
Note: Data presented in Chapters III and IV on the rates of
substance and misuse in the general population differ slightly
from these statistics because the former include the inmates
who had been released from prison.
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.
b
Binge drinking is defined as five or more drinks on the same
occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days.

‡

Consumed five or more drinks on the same occasion
on at least one day in the past 30 days.
§
All comparisons with the general population are
among those age 18 and over who have not been
conditionally released.
-58-

Approximately the same proportion of female
and male conditionally released offenders
reported past-year use of illicit drugs (45.1
percent vs. 44.5 percent). Among conditionally
released offenders, women were less likely than
men to have used illicit drugs and/or to have
engaged in binge drinking during the past 30
days (49.2 percent vs. 57.7 percent). * (Table 6.2)
Table 6.2

for substance abuse than males, and slightly
more likely to meet clinical criteria for substance
dependence. (Table 6.3)
Table 6.3

Percent of Offenders Conditionally Releaseda
from Prison, by Past Year Substance Use Disorders
and Gender
Male Released
Offenders
16.7

a

Percent of Offenders Conditionally Released
from Prison, by Substance Misuse and Gender
Male Released
Offenders

Female Released
Offenders
9.7

Substance abuse
Substance
dependence
25.3
27.7
Substance abuse
AND/OR dependence
36.5
36.8
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) (2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and
older), among those who report being on conditional release at
any time during the 12 months prior to the survey.
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.

Female Released
Offenders

Used illicit drugs in
past 12 months
44.5
45.1
Used illicit drugs in
past 30 days
32.6
30.2
Binge drinking in
49.6
33.6
past 30 daysb
Used illicit drugs
AND/OR engaged in
57.7
49.2
binge drinking in past
30 days
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) (2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and
older), among those who report being on conditional release at
any time during the 12 months prior to the survey.
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.
b
Binge drinking is defined as five or more drinks on the same
occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days.

The difference between the percent of inmates
with SUDs (64.5 percent) and the percent of
conditionally released offenders with SUDs
(36.6 percent) could be a function of several
factors. First, methodological issues could have
resulted in an under-estimate of the prevalence
of SUDs among recently released prison inmates
under criminal justice supervision. The most
serious obstacle in the sampling of this difficultto-reach population is their transient lifestyle.
Other plausible contributors to the lower
reported prevalence of SUDs among supervised
ex-inmates include the deterrent effect of
supervision, including drug testing, and the
therapeutic impact of treatment among those
required to participate. It also is possible that
those without substance use disorders might be
more likely to be released.

Conditionally Released Offenders Have
High Rates of SUDs
More than one-third (36.6 percent) of the 1.6
million conditionally released offenders age 18
and older meet clinical diagnostic criteria for a
substance use disorder--four times the rate (9.0
percent) of the rest of the population age 18 and
over. Released inmates are more than three
times likelier than the general population to meet
clinical criteria for substance abuse (15.1 percent
vs. 4.8 percent) and more than five times likelier
to meet criteria for substance dependence (25.9
percent vs. 4.7 percent). Female released
offenders are less likely to meet clinical criteria

Conditionally Released Offenders with
SUDs Report Poor Health
Conditionally released offenders with SUDs
have more health problems than their
counterparts without SUDs. Of conditionally
released offenders age 18 and over with SUDs,
only 42.2 percent self-reported their overall

*

Females released from prison were less likely than
males released from prison to report illicit drug use
(29.2 percent vs. 32.4 percent) or heavy drinking 12.6
percent and 15.3 percent) in the past 30 days.
-59-

health status as
Table 6.4
excellent or very good
Percent of Offenders Conditionally Releaseda from Prison, by Health Status
compared to 57.2
Released
Released
Male Released Female Released
percent of the
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders with
conditionally released
without
SUDs
with
SUDs
with
SUDs
SUDs
inmates without SUDs.
Overall
health
status
Conditionally released
Excellent/Very
57.2
42.2
41.2
45.3
offenders with SUDs
Good
were nearly twice as
Good/ Fair/Poor
42.8
57.8
58.8
54.7
likely as those without
Serious
SUDs to have
psychological
experienced serious
distress
psychological distress *
Yes
16.7
29.5
23.0
50.0
during the past 12
No
83.3
70.5
77.0
50.0
months (29.5 percent
Source: Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
vs. 16.7 percent); just
(2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and older), comparing substance use among those who
report being on conditional release to that of those who report never having been on conditional
2.3 percent of the
release at any time during the 12 months prior to the survey.
general population met
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.
these criteria. Female
released inmates with
SUDs were more than twice as likely as their
male counterparts to have experienced serious
psychological distress during the past 12 months
(50.0 percent vs. 23.0 percent). (Table 6.4)
Drug Overdose: The Number One Killer
of Offenders Released from Prisons
One study found that incarcerated offenders
released from prisons are nearly 13 times likelier
Among the 30,237 inmates released from
to die during their first two weeks out of prison
Washington state prisons between 1999 and
than individuals in the general population, † with
2003, 38 died within two weeks, 27 of them
from a drug overdose. In total, 443 died in the
a markedly elevated relative risk of death from
5
first two years after release. This mortality rate
drug overdose.
was 3.5 times the expected rate in a population
of similar age, gender and cultural background.
Among the 443 deaths recorded during the
follow-up period, a drug overdose was the
leading cause of death (103 deaths), and cocaine
was the most common drug involved in the
overdose. 4

*

The measure of serious psychological distress is
based on six symptoms: feeling nervous, feeling
hopeless, feeling restless or fidgety, feeling so sad or
depressed that nothing could cheer you up, feeling
everything was an effort and feeling no good or
worthless. Respondents were asked how frequently
they experienced these symptoms during the one
month in the past year when they were at their worst
emotionally.
†
The authors compared the death rate (number of
deaths per 100,000 people in the population) between
former inmates during the first two weeks after their
release and residents of the state of Washington in
1999 and 2003.
-60-

Conditionally Released Offenders with
SUDs Likelier to be Young and Male
Almost three-quarters (76.2
Table 6.5
percent) of conditionally
Percent of Conditionally Released Offendersa
released offenders with SUDs
with Substance Use Disorders, by Age and Gender
are male. Conditionally
released offenders with SUDs
Released
Released
Male Released Female Released
are likelier to be younger than
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
those without SUDs; 31.5
without SUDs
with SUDs
with SUDs
with SUDs
percent of those with SUDs are 18-25 years old
25.5
31.5
32.9
27.3
ages 18 to 25 compared with
26-34 years old
33.1
30.4
30.2
31.1
25.5 percent of those without
35-49 years old
28.1
34.5
32.3
41.6
50 or older
13.4
3.6
4.7
0.0
SUDs. Female conditionally
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
released offenders with SUDs
(2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and older), among those who report being on
are likelier than their male
conditional release at any time during the 12 months prior to the survey.
counterparts to be between the
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.
ages of 35 and 49 (41.6
percent vs. 32.3 percent). (Table 6.5)

SUDs Most Prevalent among Black
Conditionally Released Offenders
Among conditionally released offenders,
Blacks have the highest SUD rates (49.6
percent) compared with whites (35.7
percent), Hispanics (27.3 percent), Native
Americans (15.2 percent) and others (34.7
percent). Among whites, conditionally
released females are likelier to have
SUDs than males (42.5 percent vs. 33.3
percent). For other racial groups, males
are likelier than females to have SUDs.
(Table 6.6)

Table 6.6

Conditionally Released Offendersa
Percent by Gender and Race/Ethnicity with
Substance Use Disorders
Male
Female
Total
White
33.3
42.5
35.7
Black
50.4
46.8
49.6
Hispanic
28.4
23.7
27.3
Native American
33.8
4.1
15.2
Other
35.9
0.0
34.7
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH) (2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and older), among those who
report being on conditional release at any time during the 12 months prior to
the survey.
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.

-61-

Few Conditionally
Released Offenders with
SUDs are Married

Table 6.7

Percent of Conditionally Released Offendersa
with Substance Use Disorders, by Marital Status and Gender

Released
Released
Male Released
Female Released
Just over one in 10 (12.7
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
with
Offenders with
percent) conditionally
without SUDs
with SUDs
SUDs
SUDs
released offenders with
Married
28.5
12.7
9.2
24.1
SUDs are married,
Divorced/
compared with 28.5 percent widowed
21.3
17.9
17.0
20.9
of those without SUDs.
Single/
Although the absolute
never
50.2
69.4
73.8
55.0
majority of released
married
inmates with SUDs are
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
(2006) [Data file] (respondents 18 and older), among those who report being on
single and never married
conditional release at any time during the 12 months prior to the survey.
(55.0 percent for women
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.
vs. 73.8 percent for men),
women with SUDs are
more than twice as likely as males to be married
Conditionally released offenders with SUDs
(24.1 percent vs. 9.2 percent). (Table 6.7)
were likelier to be living on a total family
income of $20,000 or less than those without
Female conditionally released offenders with
SUDs (59.4 percent vs. 38.8 percent).
SUDs also were likelier than males with such
(Table 6.8)
disorders to be living in a household with minor
children (63.4 percent vs. 39.9 percent).
Conditionally Released Offenders with

SUDs are Poorly Educated
Conditionally Released Offenders with
SUDs are Likely to be Unemployed

Most of those leaving prison today will be
poorly educated and lack marketable job skills. 6
Conditionally released offenders with SUDs are
likelier than those without such disorders to have
less than a high school education (57.2 percent
vs. 41.5 percent) and less than a college
education (99.4 percent vs. 93.0 percent).
Women with SUDs who have been conditionally
released are less educated than their male
counterparts (87.3 percent of women have a high
school education or less compared to 79.9
percent of men).

Conditionally released offenders with SUDs are
less likely to be employed than such offenders
without SUDs (55.7 percent vs. 74.1 percent).
Women who have been conditionally released
and who have SUDs are much less likely to be
employed than their male counterparts (25.5
percent vs. 65.2 percent). They also are more
likely to receive public assistance (18.9 percent
vs. 4.7 percent); 74.5 percent of conditionally
released women with SUDs are not in the labor
force. *
Most (93.6 percent of women and 86.8 percent
of men) conditionally released offenders with
SUDs had a family income of less than $50,000.
*

Individuals not in the labor force include those who
do not have a job and either were not looking for
work or were looking for work but did not report
making specific efforts to find work in the past 30
days, students, housewives or househusbands, retired
individuals, and individuals not working because of a
disability.
-62-

Table 6.8

Percent of Conditionally Released Offendersa
with Substance Use Disorders, by Employment, Income and Gender
Released
Offenders
without SUDs

Released
Offenders
with SUDs

Male
Released
Offenders
with SUDs

Female
Released
Offenders
with SUDs

Currently employed
Yes
74.1
55.7
65.2
25.5
No
25.9
44.3
34.8
74.5
Currently receiving public assistance
Yes
7.5
8.0
4.7
18.9
No
92.5
92.0
95.3
81.1
Total family income
Less than $20,000
38.8
59.4
61.4
53.0
$20,000-$49,999
39.2
29.0
25.4
40.6
$50,000-$74,999
10.9
3.2
4.3
0.0
$75,000 or higher
11.1
8.3
8.9
6.4
Source: CASA’s analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (2006) [Data file]
(respondents 18 and older), among those who report being on conditional release at any time during the 12
months prior to the survey.
a
On parole, supervision or other restricted release.

than those of men (68.0 percent vs. 74.4
percent). 9 (Table 6.9)

Availability of Aftercare
In 2006, 35.4 percent of conditionally released
offenders with SUDs received any form of
addiction treatment; women were likelier to
receive treatment than men (55.8 percent vs.
29.0 percent). 7 Admissions to addiction
treatment with a probation, parole or other
conditional release referral were more likely
than admissions with no correctional referral to
be to non-intensive ambulatory care (72.9
percent vs. 38.6 percent). Admissions with no
correctional referrals were likelier to be to short
stay rehabilitation than admissions with a
conditionally released referral (11.7 percent vs.
5.8 percent). 8 (Table 6.9)

Despite the enormous treatment gap and failure
to provide a comprehensive approach to
aftercare, individuals with SUDs who were
referred from probation, parole or other
conditional release were likelier than individuals
in the general population who were not referred
by correctional authorities to have received
treatment in the past year (35.4 percent vs. 6.7
percent). This difference can be explained in
part by the fact that treatment participation is
imposed on some parolees as a condition for
their release. 10 Also, because of their low
income status, they may be more likely than the
general population to be eligible for government
supported programs. Finally, offenders with
substance use disorders may be less likely to be
released.

Admissions of females referred to treatment
from probation, parole or other conditional
release were somewhat likelier than their male
counterparts to be for an intensive ambulatory
care program (12.2 percent vs. 8.6 percent) or a
long stay * rehabilitation program (9.9 percent
vs. 7.5 percent). Admissions of women were
somewhat less likely to be for treatment in a
non-intensive ambulatory treatment program
*

Over 30 days.
-63-

Table 6.9
Percent of Treatment Admissions among Conditionally Released Offendersa
and the General Population with No Correctional Referral
General
Population
No Correctional
Referral

With
Correctional
Referral

Males with
Correctional
Referral

Females with
Correctional
Referral

In past year, service received:
Detoxification
29.6
3.6
3.4
4.1
Treatment
Hospital-based rehabilitation
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
Short stay
(less than 30-day) rehabilitation
11.7
5.8
5.9
5.5
Long stay
(over 30-day) rehabilitation
7.2
8.1
7.5
9.9
Intensive ambulatory
10.3
9.4
8.6
12.2
Non-intensive ambulatory
38.6
72.9
74.4
68.0
Source: CASA analysis of the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2006 (ICPSR 21540) [Data file] (admissions
of individuals 18 and older).
a
Includes those on probation, parole or other restricted release; excludes those currently incarcerated, in drug
court/alcohol court, referred from DWI or DUI programs, or leaving parole and probation.

In 2006, nearly all parole agencies * reported
having paroled offenders in a drug treatment
program run by formally trained treatment
professionals (47 of the 49 state agencies with a
known status), having paroled offenders in
mutual support programs such as AA or NA (46
of the 49 agencies) and having paroled offenders
in a mental health treatment program run by
formally trained treatment professionals (47 out
of 49 agencies). Just over half † reported
offering housing assistance to adult parolees in
2006 and 37 agencies reported offering
employment assistance. The percentage of
parolees in need of such services and who
received them, however, is not known. In 2006,
the average caseload in state parole supervising
agencies was 38 active parolees for each fulltime equivalent position devoted to parole
supervision. 12

Justice Policy Institute Report
States that have successfully improved outcomes for
people on parole have done so through a combination
of the following practices, including:

*

Information was not available for Illinois,
Mississippi or Wisconsin, but includes Washington,
DC and the California Juvenile Justice Division
which had an adult parole population of 67 in 2006.
†
27 out of 50 state agencies.
-64-

•

Shifting the supervision modality from a lawenforcement orientation to one more focused on
helping people be successful in the community;

•

Developing systems of graduated responses to
supervision behavior that include positive
incentives, treatment, and non-incarcerative
sanctions; and

•

Matching intensity of supervision to the level of
risk and needs of the individual, so people who
have greater needs have more case management,
while those with fewer needs are not excessively
burdened with parole requirements. 11

Data are not available to measure the quality of
these services or the prevalence of SUDs and the
rate of treatment participation among prison
inmates who were released directly into the
community without the benefit of community
supervision.

Components of Effective Aftercare
Effective strategies that should be employed in
aftercare programs include: community
supervision, integrated services, case
management and graduated sanctions. To assure
that these practices are implemented effectively,
training of probation and parole officers also is
essential. 14

Insurance Coverage for Treatment
for Released Offenders
Almost two-thirds of admissions for treatment
among conditionally released offenders (61.5
percent) were covered by Medicaid (8.8 percent)
or other government payments (52.7 percent).
By comparison, these services cover 54.0
percent of admissions among the general
population with no correctional treatment
referral. Male conditionally released offenders
were likelier than their female counterparts to
have their admissions covered by other
government payments (52.9 percent vs. 52.0
percent) or to pay for treatment themselves (13.7
percent vs. 10.1 percent), while female
conditionally released offenders were likelier to
have their admission covered by Medicaid (16.2
percent vs. 6.5 percent). 13 (Table 6.10)

Community Supervision
Since released offenders who remain dependent
on substances are much likelier to return to
criminal activity, post-release community
supervision can be an important tool to assist
released offenders access the care they need.
Even if treatment is provided during
incarceration, treatment gains may be lost if care
is not continued after release. Monitoring and
coordination of services through the correctional
system can provide structure and accountability
to manage SUDs and their consequences. 15

Table 6.10

Percent of Treatment Admissions among Conditionally Released Offendersa
and the General Population with No Correctional Referral, by Source of Paymentb
General
Population
No Correctional
Referral

With
Correctional
Referral

Males with
Correctional
Referral

Females with
Correctional
Referral

Treatment paid for by:
Self
15.6
12.8
13.7
10.1
Private health insurance
6.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
Medicare, Workers’ Compensation
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
Medicaid
16.4
8.8
6.5
16.2
Other government paymentsc
37.6
52.7
52.9
52.0
Other source
11.2
7.9
8.3
6.7
No charge
11.5
14.5
15.4
11.7
Source: CASA analysis of the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2006 (ICPSR 21540) [Data file] (admissions
of individuals 18 and older).
a
Includes those on probation, parole or other restricted release; excludes those currently incarcerated, in drug
court/alcohol court, referred from DWI or DUI programs, or leaving parole and probation.
b
Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.
c
Includes payments by federal, state or local governments such as Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPUS),
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), drug courts and state health programs, and excluding
Medicare, Medicaid and Workers’ Compensation.

-65-

Integrated Services

Integrated Services

Development of an integrated service plan is key
to achieving successful re-entry; attaining stable
housing, gainful employment, satisfactory health
and a stable family life are of critical importance
to recovery and reduced recidivism. 16
Achieving these goals will require that released
offenders successfully navigate circumstances
that increase the risk that they will continue
addictive substance use or recidivate, including
mental illness, low self-esteem, unemployment
and living alone. 17

In 1998, the California Department of
Corrections initiated a multidimensional parolebased reintegration program called the
Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP).
The program brought together six networks of
community service providers supporting four
areas: employment, substance abuse education
and recovery, math and literacy skill
development and housing.
The employment component involves 12 job
development and placement subcontractors; the
substance abuse component relies on two
treatment providers offering a wide range of
therapeutic services; math and literacy training
services are provided by a self-paced, computerassisted instructional program; and the housing
services are offered to support homeless
parolees’ transition to independent living in the
community through six residential multi-service
centers.

Developing integrated service plans will require
an effective working relationship between the
correctional systems and community-based
service providers, including data sharing, in
order for aftercare programs to build on the
achievements and progress made in prison or
jail. 18
To encourage such collaboration and improve
outcomes, the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment has recommended providing
incentives for service providers to work together
to address the needs of offenders with SUDs,
and incentives for released offenders to
participate in treatment (e.g., safe housing units,
positive parole board review, the return of
children to their mothers, or less frequent
reporting to parole or probation officers). 20

Specific treatment goals were set for
participation in these integrated services.
Evaluation results showed that, overall, PPCP
participants had a re-incarceration rate that was
eight percentage points lower than comparable
non-PPCP parolees (44.8 percent vs. 52.8
percent). Recidivism rates for PPCP
participants meeting one or more of the
program’s treatment goals were 20.1 percent
lower than non-PPCP participants. The reincarceration rate for PPCP participants who
met more than one treatment goal was 47.1
lower than the comparison group. 19

Case Management
In order to coordinate the behavioral monitoring,
health care and social services for a particular
released inmate, best practice research concludes
that each inmate should have a case manager.
The case manager should assure that transition
planning begins before release and is monitored
and evaluated periodically. Evaluation should
assess the offender’s treatment needs, treatment
readiness, treatment engagement and treatment
progress as well as life skills, employment
readiness and status, stress control, psychosocial
functioning, emotional support and financial
management skills. 21

Graduated Sanctions
Graduated sanctions are structured, incremental
punishments for non-compliant behaviors. They
are designed to give the supervision officer the
ability to respond quickly to noncompliant acts
through actions such as a day in jail, more
frequent substance testing, more reporting or a
curfew. 22 This approach is based on research
that shows that the likelihood that a supervised
offender will engage in substance use or illegal
activity is influenced by the perceived certainty
of detection of infractions or recognition of
accomplishments, the perceived certainty of

-66-

positive effects of treatment, potentially slowing
the recovery process. 26

receiving sanctions for infractions or rewards for
accomplishments, and the anticipated magnitude
of the sanctions and rewards. 23

Training of Probation and Parole Officers
Graduated Sanctions

There appears to be a trend in parole supervision
to group parolees with substance use problems
under targeted care so that their special needs
can be better attended. 29 There also is evidence
that probation and parole officers can be trained
effectively to integrate assessment and case
planning and management with the correctional
model and engage the offender in the recovery
process though motivational techniques and
incentives. 30 In spite of this evidence, however,
the practice of community supervision has
become more law enforcement oriented since
the 1980s, shifting from a casework/
rehabilitation approach to a surveillance/
deterrence approach. 31

In an experimental evaluation in Washington
DC, 240 drug court participants subjected to
graduated sanctions in addition to regular drug
testing and monitoring were compared to 311
controls who were tested for drug use and
monitored on the regular schedule. Participants
of the graduated sanctions program tested
positive for drugs on 53 percent of the tests
administered during the pretrial release period,
while control sample subjects tested positive on
71 percent of their tests. While participants of
the graduated sanctions were no less likely than
the control sample to be re-arrested in the first
year following sentencing, they were
significantly less likely than the control subjects
to be re-arrested in the following year (19
percent vs. 27 percent). 27

Merely incarcerating offenders without treating
underlying substance abuse problems is
shortsighted, expensive, and will not solve the
crime problem. It simply suspends temporarily
the criminal, destructive and costly interactions
between offenders and our communities.
Between 60 and 75 percent of untreated
parolees with histories of cocaine or heroin
abuse return to those drugs within three months
of release. Failing to provide appropriate
testing and treatment means that the cycle of
drugs and crime will continue--with huge
social, human, and economic costs for our
nation. 28

The sanctioning process uses modest steps to
deter future rule violations, ensure the integrity
of the supervision and maintain the continuity of
care. The assignment of less punitive responses
for early and less serious non-compliance and
increasingly harsher sanctions for more serious
or persistent problems is most effective when
implemented in conjunction with substance
testing. 24
Addiction is a chronic disease and, like other
chronic health conditions, recovery often
includes relapse and requires more than one
episode of intensive treatment. 25 Research into
graduated sanctions suggests that reincarceration be reserved for circumstances
involving a new offense or a recalcitrant pattern
of technical violations. Even a few days in jail,
out of the structured and supportive
environments provided in community-based
treatment programs, can disrupt the recovery
process. If probationers return to jail they may
lose the jobs or housing they gained during the
recovery process and cause new or renewed
relationships to break down. These
repercussions may counteract some of the

--U.S. Department of Justice
The Clinton Administration’s Law Enforcement
Strategy: Breaking the Cycle of
Drugs and Crime, 1999

When properly trained, probation and parole
officers not only can better understand SUDs but
also can contribute to the recovery process. In a
Canadian experiment, probation and parole
officers from western Ontario were trained in
and provided Structured Relapse Prevention
(SRP) to 55 clients over a one-year period.
Evaluation findings showed that officers were
enthusiastic about SRP, in spite of its added time
demands, and that SRP effectively helped with

-67-

been shown to produce significant results in
terms of reducing recidivism. Examples include
the California and Delaware treatment and
aftercare programs. The Sheridan National
Model Drug Prison and Reentry Program in
Illinois also shows promising results.

the substance use problems of supervised
offenders. 32

Best Practices in Reentry
Release presents offenders with a difficult and
risky transition from the structured environment
of the prison or jail. Many released inmates
with SUDs have no place to live, no job and no
family or social supports. They often lack the
knowledge and skills to access available
resources for adjustment to life on the outside-all factors that significantly increase the risk of
relapse and recidivism. 34 Successful reentry and
reintegration into their communities can be
aided by a combination of prison-based
treatment and comprehensive and effective
aftercare (including employment) services post
release to help manage the addiction and address
other health and social problems. 35

Our focus has shifted toward offender re-entry
from day one. We’re giving them every
opportunity to change their lives. 33
--Katherine Sanguinetti
Spokesperson for the
Colorado Corrections Department

California Prison-Based Treatment and
Aftercare
Studies that followed ex-offenders several years
after treatment found that they had lower rates of
substance relapse or recidivism than comparison
groups who did not participate in treatment. 40 In
a Californian study where inmates with
substance use problems were randomly assigned
to regular prison-based therapeutic community
(TC) only and to TC plus aftercare interventions,
only 8.2 percent of the TC plus aftercare
completers were re-incarcerated at 12 months
after release compared to 40.2 percent of TC
only completers and 49.7 percent of those in the
control group who received no treatment or
aftercare. 41

Research has found that integrating in-prison
treatment with aftercare, including work release
and parole supervision, results in the best social
adjustment and the lowest recidivism outcomes
among ex-offenders. 36
Reentry services can either be mandated as prerelease requirements or, where jurisdiction
terminates with release, offered as post-release
options. However, many of the approximately
14,000 community-based treatment facilities 37
in the U.S. lack capacity to extend services to all
those in need who are reentering the community
from the justice system. Further, many
treatment providers lack the training and
appropriate staff to provide effective services to
address the multiple needs of ex-offenders. For
example, while CASA estimates that over 67
percent of inmates with a substance use disorder
have co-occurring mental health problems, only
35 percent of treatment providers have some
capacity to serve clients with co-occurring
disorders. 38 In addition, many offenders leave
jail or prison without a referral to such programs
and, even with a referral, many do not access
treatment. 39

Delaware Prison-Based Treatment and
Aftercare
One study in Delaware found that substanceinvolved prisoners who participated in a prisonbased TC, a transitional TC in a work release
setting and aftercare involving outpatient
counseling, refresher sessions at the transitional
TC and regular calls to their counselor while
under community supervision, had the lowest
relapse * and recidivism outcomes among exoffenders five years following their release. Just
over half (52 percent) of those who completed
treatment and then attended aftercare were likely

Some of the best known treatment and aftercare
initiatives have been tested empirically and have

*

Relapse to drug use is defined here as any illegal
drug use since release.

-68-

for Safe Communities (TASC) conducts preSheridan screening, post-release treatment
referrals and clinical case management. Illinois
Valley Community College, the Illinois
Manufacturing Foundation and the National
Homebuilders Association engage in educational
and vocational training. 48

to be rearrested compared to 77 percent of the
group without any treatment or aftercare.
Among participants who completed treatment
and aftercare, 26 percent were likely to remain
drug free by 60 months compared with five
percent with no treatment or aftercare. 42
The Sheridan National Model Drug Prison and
Reentry Program (Illinois)

The Sheridan Project is further supplemented by
a comprehensive parole reform plan dubbed
Operation Spotlight. Operation Spotlight calls
for spending $6.4 million to double the number
of parole officers over a four-year period from
370 to 740, reducing their caseloads, increasing
their mandatory minimum contacts with parolees
and providing them with improved training on
risk assessment and case management.
Ultimately, the goal is to enable parole officers
to determine more quickly which offenders pose
a risk to public safety and should be reincarcerated and which offenders require greater
case management to facilitate addiction
treatment, mental health services and job
preparedness services. 49

The Sheridan Project was initiated in 2004, at an
annual cost of 25.5 million, on the premise that
offenders’ substance abuse and other
criminogenic problems must be addressed in
order to improve public safety and reduce
recidivism. 43 The program admits male inmates
who have a substance use problem, are serving
between six and 24 months, have no serious
mental disorders and are not convicted of
murder or sexual assault. 44
Sheridan, with its 1,300-bed capacity is known
as the largest fully dedicated drug treatment
facility in the United States. 45 But it is more
than a treatment prison. All Illinois prison
inmates who meet eligibility criteria for the
Sheridan program are transferred to the facility,
where they receive a full assessment and
evaluation of treatment needs. 46 During the
program, inmates receive intensive substance
abuse treatment in a therapeutic community, as
well as educational and vocational training and
other specialized services such as anger
management and family reunification. Prior to
their release, inmates receive assistance in
developing an aftercare plan for meeting
treatment and other service needs, such as
education, housing and employment. Upon their
release, Sheridan participants receive referrals to
various services in the community, including
aftercare treatment and educational/vocational
programs, job placement assistance and linkage
to a community mentor. 47

An early evaluation found that six months after
release, seven percent of those released from
Sheridan had been incarcerated compared to 17
percent of those in the control group. Of
participants released from Sheridan and on
parole, 56 percent were employed, while 44
percent were employed among the comparison
group. * 50 More recently, substance-involved
offenders released from Sheridan have
demonstrated a 20 percent lower likelihood of
returning to prison than their peers who were
held at a traditional prison facility. † Sheridan
graduates who completed aftercare had a 52

*

This research was not published in a refereed
journal; however the methods and findings of the
analysis were reviewed by an advisory group made
up of well-established researchers and academics
from the addiction and criminal justice fields.
†
Re-incarceration was defined as having been
returned to prison for either a new crime or for a
technical violation of parole as of 31 December 2008,
resulting in a minimum time at risk for the Sheridan
and comparison groups of 18 months and maximum
of 4.5 years.

Community resources are mobilized to provide
treatment and services to Sheridan program
participants. The Gateway Foundation delivers
drug treatment at the Sheridan Correctional
Center. The Safer Foundation provides
employability training and post-release job
referrals and placement. Treatment Alternatives
-69-

percent lower likelihood of being returned to
prison than the comparison group. * 51

reentry plans containing measurable annual and
five-year performance outcomes. 53

Despite the enormous need for treatment and
aftercare services, and successful models of
treatment and transition planning, 52 such
services have not been implemented as standard
practice.

The Second Chance Act authorizes up to $165
million a year † for an array of programs--from
employment services to housing to treatment for
SUDs. It also authorizes funding for
demonstration treatment initiatives, mentoring
and transitional service projects for ex-offenders
through partnerships with local corrections
agencies and community organizations. ‡ In
fiscal year 2009, Congress only appropriated
$25 million dollars for Second Chance Act
programs: $10 million in grants for nonprofit
organizations providing mentoring and
transitional services and $15 million for state
and local reentry demonstration projects. 54
Appropriations for this program for 2010 will
provide an increase of $75 million over 2009. 55

The Second Chance Act
To address the reentry needs of offenders,
Congress enacted the Second Chance Act which
was signed into law in April 2008. The goal of
this legislation is reduction of recidivism among
convicted criminal offenders. The Act calls for
the creation of a Federal prisoner reentry
initiative, changes the amount of time a federal
inmate is entitled to be considered for prerelease placement in community confinement/
service participation from six months to 12
months, and makes aftercare a mandatory
requirement for all grant recipients. Grant
recipients are required to develop strategic
*

Sheridan inmates who did not complete aftercare
actually had a higher likelihood of being returned to
prison than the comparison group. This pattern is
likely due to the fact that failure to comply with
aftercare among the Sheridan ex-inmates is a
technical violation of parole and, therefore, might
increase the likelihood of return to prison relative to
the comparison group, who generally were not
subject to mandatory treatment requirements. Also,
two critical characteristics--treatment need and
motivation/desire for treatment--could not be
statistically controlled for between the Sheridan and
comparison group inmates. While it would be
expected that there would be similarities between the
two groups in terms of treatment need, given how
closely matched they were across almost every
characteristic, what cannot currently be determined is
the desire for treatment among the comparison group.
These data were currently being collected and were
therefore not yet available for inclusion in the
analyses. Although these findings are preliminary
and limited by the inability to account statistically for
differences in treatment motivation among the
comparison group, they are consistent with the
growing body of literature regarding the
improvement in recidivism outcomes when prisonbased TC participation is following by communitybased aftercare.

†

Subject to the availability of appropriations.
Funding for research on prisoner reentry, parole and
probation violations, best practices for addressing the
needs of children of incarcerated parents and the
effectiveness of injection naltrexone for treating
heroin addiction was also authorized.

‡

-70-

Chapter VII

Overcoming Barriers to Intervention and Treatment
In the face of available evidence that addiction is
a medical condition, that there are effective
treatments, that failure to provide treatment
contributes to mortality and morbidity, and that
the criminal justice system can deliver such
treatment, withholding such services makes no
sense. It also is fiscally irresponsible.
In all cost-benefit analyses of criminal justicebased treatment, the monetary benefits of
treatment outweighed the costs. Overcoming the
barriers to addressing the substance use issues of
the criminal justice population can save billions
in government dollars each year. Providing the
most comprehensive option of prison-based
treatment and aftercare for offenders with
substance use disorders who are not now
receiving treatment would cost an additional
$9,745 per inmate. Such an investment would
more than pay for itself one year post release if
less than 11 percent of those who receive such
services remain substance and crime free and
employed. For each additional year that a
former inmate stays substance free and crime
free and employed, society would receive a net
economic benefit of approximately $90,953.

We know that most of our prisoners are addicts,
yet we contain them with no access to treatment
in facilities where they continue to abuse drugs
and harm themselves. Then we release them and
expect them to be fully rehabilitated. How can
we be so stupid? How can we, as intelligent
people, sit on the sidelines and watch our tax
dollars wasted this way every year? Why aren’t
we outraged? 1

There are many forces that contribute to a failure
of leadership and drive government decisions to
limit resources to address the substance use
disorders of inmates. Fortunately, there is some
good news; mandatory sentencing practices are
being reversed and public sentiment has changed
about the value of treatment for offenders with
substance use disorders. It is time for public
policy to catch up with science and public
opinion.

Monday, March 2, 2009
--Terry M. Rubenstein, Executive Vice President
of the Joseph and Harvey Meyerhoff Family
Charitable Funds

In order to meet the health needs of substanceinvolved offenders and reduce crime and its
costs to society, the criminal justice system must
address risky substance use as a preventable
health problem and addictive disorders as
medical problems. This will involve training
criminal justice personnel on how to screen all
offenders for substance use problems; providing

-71-

evidence-based treatment, support services and
aftercare to all incarcerated offenders with
substance use disorders; and providing effective
treatment-based alternatives to incarceration.

a serious criminal offense on three or more
separate occasions. 8 Offenders who were
substance involved disproportionately bore the
burden of the increased punitive environment.
A 2003 study reported that more “third
strikers” * in California were serving such a
sentence for drug possession than for seconddegree murder, assault with a deadly weapon
and rape combined. 9

Barriers to Intervention and
Treatment for Substance-Involved
Offenders
Government inertia and a failure of leadership to
address the widespread problem of substanceinvolved offenders can be attributed to many
factors including mandatory sentencing policies
that eliminate the possibilities of alternative
sentencing and/or parole, lack of a clear legal
mandate to provide treatment, economic
interests in prison expansion and the failure of
public policy to reflect changing public attitudes
about addiction and justice.

…the war on drugs…soon will mark its 39-year
anniversary. Few public policies have
compromised public health and undermined the
fair and effective functioning of the justice system
for so long. 10
--American Judicial Society Editorial, 2009

Mandatory sentences, as applied in practice, not
only result in prison overcrowding, they unfairly
target disadvantaged minority groups. 11 Federal
mandatory sentencing laws enacted in 1986 and
1988 required a five-year mandatory sentence
for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine and
the same five-year mandatory sentence for only
five grams of crack cocaine. Since users of
crack cocaine concentrated in inner city
neighborhoods and consumers of powder
cocaine were more likely to come from better
off communities, significant racial disparities
occurred. 12 While blacks represented 43 percent
and whites 55 percent of drug felons convicted
in state courts in 2002, blacks accounted for 53.5
percent and whites accounted for 33.3 percent of
drug felons serving time in state prisons in
2003. 13

Mandatory Sentencing
In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars and politicians
alike advocated for harsher punishment and
deterrence policies instead of rehabilitation. 2
Criticisms of rehabilitation gained public
support as correctional ideals seemed to be
abandoned in exchange for a more punitive
stance. 3 This distrust in rehabilitation was
fueled by the crack-cocaine epidemic of the
1980s which prompted politicians to enact
mandatory and lengthy minimum prison
sentences for drug offenders. 4
Public desire for more comprehensive punitive
sanctions against criminal offenders contributed
to some of the toughest penalties America had
ever put into practice. 5 Mandatory sentencing
laws that compel judges to deliver fixed prison
sentences to convicted offenders regardless of
mitigating circumstances became very popular
during the period of skyrocketing drug crime in
the 1970s and 1980s. 6 Sentences under federal
and state mandatory guidelines were based on
the weight and type of the drugs and vary from
five years to life in prison. 7

CASA recommended in its 1998 Behind Bars
report that mandatory minimum sentences that
eliminate the possibilities of alternative
sentencing and/or parole be modified. Since that
time there has been substantial movement
toward eliminating this barrier to addressing the
needs of substance-involved offenders. Judges
and prosecutors have found ways to circumvent
these mandatory provisions, departing
downward from sentencing guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentences in 44 percent of

One form of mandatory sentencing is the “three
strikes” laws that require lengthy incarceration
of chronic offenders who have been convicted of

*

-72-

Imprisoned for longer periods for a third felony.

all federal drug sentences between 1999 and
2001. 14 Between 2001 and 2002, 20 states
either proposed or had already taken steps to
reduce sentences, replace prison time with drug
treatment or return some discretion to judges. 15
Public sentiment appeared to support these
changes. A New York Times poll in 2002
reported that 79 percent of New Yorkers favored
the restoration of sentencing discretion to judges
in drug cases. 16 New York does not appear to
deviate from national norms when it comes to
attitudes towards drug treatment for offenders. 17

reasonable doubt. Under the ruling, federal
judges are free to decide for themselves whether
defendants deserve sentences longer or shorter
than the ranges prescribed by the guidelines, but
their decisions will be subject to reversal if
appeals courts find them unreasonable. 23
Two years later, in December 2007, the U.S.
Sentencing Commission unanimously agreed to
allow federal inmates serving crack cocaine
sentences to seek sentence reductions
retroactively. As of July 2008, 10,707 federal
prisoners applied for the retroactive reduction of
their sentences, and 8,147 (76.1 percent) were
granted the approval. Federal courts now
administer the application of the retroactive
guideline, which is not automatic. In fact, courts
refused to grant sentence reductions to 2,560
(23.9 percent) applicants. 24

It has become standard practice in drug cases for
defendants to be offered a lighter sentence in
exchange for a guilty plea, sparing taxpayers the
expense of a trial. 18 For example, in 2004 in
Maryland, 71 percent of drug cases settled by
plea * received sentences below the state
guidelines. 19 From 2001 to 2005, 39 percent of
drug offenders who would have been sentenced
to prison under Minnesota sentencing guidelines
were instead placed on probation. Thirty-seven
percent of Minnesota drug offenders who were
sentenced to prison received sentences below
that state’s guidelines. 20 Of the almost 70,000
federal drug sentences imposed between 1999
and 2001 with complete sentencing information,
almost half fell below sentencing guidelines.
Twenty-eight percent (19,107) departed from
guidelines because offenders provided
substantial assistance to the prosecution and 16
percent (10,891) departed due to other reasons,
such as plea agreements, judges’ consideration
of mitigating circumstances and fast track
programs initiated by prosecutors for low-level
drug offenses. 21

The highly publicized 2009 decision of the State
of New York to reform the Rockefeller Drug
Laws was the next step in the growing
movement to rethink how our nation deals with
non-violent drug offenders. The changes in
New York included the elimination of
mandatory minimums and a return to judicial
discretion in the sentencing of most drug cases,
the expansion of drug treatment and alternatives
to incarceration, and the re-sentencing of some
incarcerated people who were serving sentences
under the old Rockefeller laws. 25
The return to judicial discretion gives judges the
flexibility to link sentences to effective
treatment for substance use disorders.

Lack of Clear, Legal Mandate to Provide
Treatment

In January 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that
federal judges are no longer bound by
mandatory sentencing guidelines but need only
consult them when they punish federal
criminals. 22 The Court decided that the
administration of the mandatory sentencing
guidelines violated defendants' right to a jury
trial because imposed mandatory sentences were
not based on a jury’s finding of facts beyond a

Federal, state and local governments are
constitutionally required to provide health care
to inmates. 26 In the 1950s, the American
Medical Association recognized alcohol
addiction as a disease; 27 nonetheless, historically
there has been a debate about whether prisons
and jails are constitutionally or legally required

*

Without a specific agreement with the prosecutor or
judge.
-73-

to provide treatment for mental health disorders
to incarcerated offenders. * 28

Paradoxically, screening for substance use
problems has had stronger case law support than
substance related treatment because correctional
authorities are entrusted with the responsibility
of detecting and controlling life-threatening
medical conditions among prison or jail
inmates. 34 Withdrawal symptoms or other
medical conditions resulting from substance
misuse may be deemed life-threatening in some
instances. Despite the existence of a body of
case law in this area, there has not been
significant use of screening of the inmate
population to detect substance use problems.

In Marshall v. United States (1974), the
Supreme Court determined that an inmate was
not constitutionally entitled to drug treatment.
The basis for this ruling was that there was no
medical consensus at that time as to the efficacy
of known addiction treatment methods and the
prospect for the successful rehabilitation of
substance-involved offenders largely was
shrouded in uncertainty. 29
Two years later, however, the Supreme Court
ruled that correctional administrators cannot
ignore the “serious medical needs” of an
inmate. 30 In 1992, a federal Court of Appeals
ruled that a serious medical need would be a
critical medical condition that if left untreated
could further exacerbate significant injury,
impair daily activities or result in chronic and
substantial pain. 31 Some legal experts
interpreted this ruling in the 1990s as indicating
that addiction treatment for incarcerated
offenders is constitutionally mandated only
when there could be acute and life-threatening
consequences of non-treatment. 32

More progress has been made on the issue of
smoking. In 1993, Helling v. McKinney, inmate
McKinney sued correctional officials of the
State of Nevada for showing deliberate
indifference to his health by forcing him to share
a cell with a fellow inmate who smoked five
packs of cigarettes a day. The Court ruled that
exposure to conditions that posed an
unreasonable risk of serious damage to any
inmate’s future health constituted a cruel and
unusual punishment. 35 Following the decision,
prisons had to acquiesce to an inmate’s demands
for non-smoking living quarters if the inmate
could prove their cellmate’s smoking was
detrimental to their future health. Nevada had
already begun to try and separate smoking and
non-smoking inmates before the case even
reached the Supreme Court. The recent sea
change in public opinion about the negative
effects of second-hand smoke appears to have
encouraged smoking bans in prisons and jails. 36

Inmates' rights to medical care for withdrawal
symptoms and other medical conditions derived
from substance misuse and addiction repeatedly
have been upheld in United States ex rel. Walker
v. Fayette County, PA, (1979) and Pedraza v.
Meyer (1990). For example, when an inmate
has been put on opiate maintenance treatment,
correctional authorities have been mandated by
courts to provide medical care for the
individual's withdrawal symptoms, but the
continuance of maintenance treatment would not
be compulsory. 33

In the mid-1990s, courts ruled that special
privileges (e.g., family visitation, transfer to
lower security units, increased opportunities to
earn parole) could not be contingent upon
coerced participation in religious or spirituallybased mutual support programs such as
Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics
Anonymous, as it violated the separation of
church and state. 37

*

In the case of mental health care, the Supreme
Court’s rulings in Pugh v. Locke (1978) and Bowring
v. Godwin (1977) specifically required the provision
of psychological and/or psychiatric services, while
the Washington v. Harper (1990) case sustained
incarcerated inmates’ rights to decline mental health
care. No case yet identifies specific steps to assure
that that the guidelines set forth in these suits are
followed (McLearen & Ryba, 2003).

Since these rulings, however, science has
demonstrated that addiction is a brain disease,
and that addictive substances activate and
disrupt normal chemical functioning in the
reward centers of our brains, and essentially
-74-

industry, whose growth has since slowed. 45 By
2006, the proportion of all inmates in federal and
state prisons housed in privately operated
facilities reached 7.2 percent. 46 The private
prison firms, including the Corrections
Corporation of America and the Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation, have become
aggressive lobbyists for tough sentencing laws
and major sources of campaign contributions in
state politics. 47

“hijack brain circuits that exert considerable
dominance over rational thought, leading to
progressive loss of control over drug intake in
the face of medical, interpersonal, occupational
and legal hazards.” 38 Untreated, addiction
causes and contributes to more than 70 other
medical conditions requiring hospitalizations
and increasing the risk of illness and death. 39
Research has demonstrated that there are
effective strategies to initiate and maintain the
recovery process, 40 and that the criminal justice
system has proved to be a competent sponsor of
successful treatment. 41 Research has
demonstrated further that incarceration for
crimes committed is compatible with rigorous
corrections-based treatment 42 and that investing
in treatment will yield reductions in crime and
much greater social and monetary benefits to
society than relying on incarceration alone. (See
Chapters V and VI)

The more than 1.6 million Americans behind
bars in federal and state prisons in 2008 48 --the
majority of them substance-involved offenders-also mean jobs for economically depressed
communities. Some local economies that were
dependent on manufacturing and agriculture
have experienced steep declines in employment
opportunities. In turn, this trend has contributed
to a dramatic change in attitudes towards prisonbuilding as a way to create relatively secure,
decently paid jobs with health benefits and
pensions. 49 The numbers of Americans
employed by federal, state and local corrections
agencies soared by 119.5 percent in the last two
decades, from 348,800 in 1984 to 765,500 in
2006, 50 providing a strong voice against the
closing of prisons.

A 2009 Human Rights Watch publication argued
that recent advances in our understanding of
addiction obligate us to revisit the issue of
addiction as a medical illness. 43 The courts have
been one of the most successful catalysts of
criminal justice reform in the U.S. The
convergence of new findings in addiction
science with the burgeoning inmates’ rights
movement has created an unprecedented
opportunity to mobilize judicial power to
intervene on behalf of inmates suffering from
substance use disorders. Litigation or the threat
of litigation can provide correctional authorities
with a basis for demanding more resources and
stimulate innovative ideas about treatment
alternatives to incarceration that have proven
effective even among chronic felons. 44

The recent economic downturn adds further
strength to the struggle between controlling
costs in the justice system and maintaining jobs
in the prison industry. 52
The lure of big money is corrupting the nation’s
criminal-justice system, replacing notions of
public service with a drive for higher profits. 51
--Eric Schlosser, Journalist
Atlantic Monthly

Economic Interests in Prison Expansion
A side effect of the massive reliance on
incarceration to fight the war on drugs has been
the rise of the private prison industry and the
economic dependence of economically
disadvantaged communities on prison expansion.
As the inmate population exploded following the
outbreak of the crack-cocaine epidemic, prison
privatization provided an expedient remedy for
prison overcrowding. The period from 1984 to
1998 marked the prime of the private prison

Attitudes about Addiction and Justice
Despite scientific recognition that addiction is a
chronic disease, 53 this knowledge does not seem
to have extended to many policymakers, many
in the court system, or even to many of the
medical staff of our nation’s correctional
facilities. 54 Molecular and imaging studies
show that addiction is a brain disorder with a
strong genetic component. 55 Too often,
-75-

and more prisons. * Individuals who were
considered informed † about the current state of
crime in the U.S. favored prevention and
rehabilitation by an even wider margin (68
percent versus 30 percent). Eighty-eight percent
of Americans believed non-violent drug
offenders should often or sometimes be placed
in treatment and counseling programs as an
alternative to prison, and 78 percent agreed that
drug courts were a better way to sentence
offenders than the regular court system. 62

however, elected officials, prosecutors and
judges, and correctional staff view the concepts
of treating addiction as a disease and of holding
people accountable for crimes they commit that
are linked to their addiction as mutually
exclusive.
This collective passion for harsh punishment
over rehabilitation and the readiness of the state
to incarcerate an unprecedented large number of
citizens made penal populism a hallmark of
American society among industrialized
democracies. 56 Indeed, compared with other
countries, more Americans are incarcerated for
nonviolent crimes such as minor property
offenses and drug use. 57 Prison sentences also
are longer in the U.S. than in other countries. 58
Some states and local jurisdictions also punish
former prisoners by revoking their eligibility for
public assistance, public housing, and financial
aid for college; many states also prohibit former
inmates from working in many public sector
jobs. 59

According to another poll ‡ conducted the same
year, 87 percent of American voters favored
making rehabilitative services available to
offenders during incarceration, after release or
during both periods. Only 11 percent of voters
favored a purely punitive approach. More than
half of voters reported that access to job training,
mental health services, family support,
mentoring and housing are very important
components of a person’s successful
reintegration into society following
incarceration. Drug treatment was cited by 79
percent of voters as very important as well. Less
than 10 percent of voters believed these services
were not important. 63

The challenge for policymakers, the courts and
correctional system medical staff is to
understand that individuals suffering from the
disease of addiction must be treated as they
would be for any other health condition. At the
same time, these same individuals should be
held accountable through the justice system for
criminal behavior linked to alcohol and other
drug misuse.

One issue that stands in the way of assuring
appropriate health and related services for
substance-involved offenders is public attitudes
*

According to a survey commissioned by the
National Center for State Courts; the survey,
conducted in spring 2006, was given to a nationally
representative sample of over 1,500 adults.
†
A crime knowledge index was created by
combining survey respondents’ answers questions
related to these three topics: 1) recent trends in the
overall crime rate; 2) recent trends in the violent
crime rate; and 3) the U.S. incarceration rate vs. that
of other countries. Those who answered at least two
of these questions correctly and none incorrectly
were classified as “informed.” Those who had more
wrong answers than right answers were classified as
“misinformed.” The remainder was classified as
“uninformed,” and less likely to give answers to these
questions.
‡
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
commissioned Zogby International to conduct a
nationally representative public opinion poll in 2006.
The sample consisted of more than 1,000 U.S. voters.

A number of surveys have shown that most
Americans support addiction treatment and,
when adequately informed, most respondents
reject the idea of returning prison and jail
inmates to the community without making a
conscientious effort to treat the condition and
thus reduce the risk of recidivism. 60 In a recent
survey, 82 percent of Americans believe that
addiction is a chronic health condition that
requires long term management and support. 61
In 2006, the majority (58 percent) of Americans
believed our top priority for dealing with crime
should be prevention or rehabilitation rather than
enforcement (39 percent)--as in more police
officers, or punishment, with longer sentences

-76-

about race, crime, and substance use that often
conflict with the facts. Although a nationally
representative survey of white Americans found
that most prefer drug treatment or probation to
incarceration for individuals who have been
found, for the first time, to be in possession of
five grams of cocaine, those who favored prison
sentences were likelier to make moral judgments
about those with substance use disorders and to
believe (inaccurately) that blacks are likelier
than whites to use cocaine that is snorted or
injected. 64

personnel to respond appropriately to substanceinvolved offenders. It will require screening and
early detection of risky substance use and
substance use disorders and providing evidencebased treatments and aftercare, either as
alternatives to or in conjunction with
incarceration. It also will require providing
education, training and employment to offenders
post release.

Training Criminal Justice Personnel
A key first step in overcoming the barriers to
treatment in the justice system is to increase
training of police, prosecutors, judges and other
criminal justice personnel in order to equip them
to deal more effectively with substance-related
crime. CASA recommended in its 1998 Behind
Bars report incorporating educational
components focusing on the prevention and
treatment of addiction into the training
curriculum of criminal justice personnel. While
some progress has been made in the educational
curriculum for probation and parole officers, 67
CASA was unable to find evidence of
improvement in the substance-related education
of corrections officers and administrators or of
corrections medical staff.

Public perceptions of racial/ethnic minorities
who are incorrectly thought to be more likely to
engage in drug use help fuel punitive and
ineffective drug policies in the United States. 65
These perceptions extend to individuals working
in the criminal justice system. A Northwestern
University research team examined 200 cocaine
cases from Dorchester County, MA--one-half of
the cases involved black and Hispanic arrestees,
the other involved white arrestees. They found
that minority offenders arrested inside a drugfree zone * were more likely to be charged with
distribution/intent, a crime that carries enhanced
penalties, than white offenders who committed
the same crimes. Minorities described in police
reports as sellers, carriers or drivers all were
more likely to be charged with
distribution/intent than similarly described
whites. 66

In 2002, 34 states required their correctional
institutions to perform both punishment and
rehabilitation through formal statutes; 68 yet, the
basic structure and functional goals of the
corrections system largely are at odds with the
goals of rehabilitation and treatment. The
personnel composition, the recruitment
requirements and the physical arrangement of
correctional settings almost exclusively are
focused on ensuring the effective custody and
control of incarcerated offenders; there is
virtually no attention to treatment and
rehabilitation. For example, as of 2007, 39 state
correctional agencies required only a high
school diploma or GED for entry-level
correctional officers. † 69 If states were focused
on rehabilitation and treatment as well, they

Overcoming Barriers to
Intervention and Treatment for
Substance-Involved Offenders
Overcoming these barriers will require political
leadership and action on the part of federal, state
and local policymakers to train criminal justice
*

Drug zones range from 300 feet (MN, NC & RI) to
three miles (AL) and cover areas surrounding schools
and other locations, varying by state (such as parks,
housing projects, public pools, etc). Individuals
caught committing drug offenses in drug-free zones
face substantially increased penalties. The types of
offenses carrying enhanced or additional penalties
also vary across states; as do the penalty differences
between drug crimes committed in and out of the
designated zones.

†

One state had no educational requirements, two
states required only that officers pass a written exam
and six states did not participate in the survey. Only
two states reported that some college was required.

-77-

reduce prison overcrowding, and save taxpayer
money. 79

could be expected also to hire individuals with
more advanced training in these areas. Multistate surveys have reported that even
professionals working in prison-based treatment
settings experience an unusually high rate of job
burnout. 70

Treatment and Aftercare
As discussed in Chapters V and VI, a substantial
body of knowledge exists to guide the provision
of effective treatment for substance-involved
offenders, assure that treatment is tailored to the
race/ethnicity and gender of inmates, address
their co-occurring health and mental health
problems, and increase the chances of reentry
into the community and reduce recidivism.

Early Detection
CASA recommended in its 1998 report
screening of arrestees for risky substance use
and substance use disorders. 71 Since that time,
the value of screenings, brief interventions and
referrals to treatment has been demonstrated in
many settings. 72 This approach can reduce risky
and costly substance misuse and identify those
who need treatment. Early detection followed
by appropriate interventions and treatments are
key to preventing future substance-related
crime. 73

An example of tailored treatment is familybased treatment programs that have proven
effective for serving the special populations of
substance-abusing juveniles and female
offenders with children. 80 The geographic
remoteness of most correctional facilities is an
obstacle to the goal of more widespread
implementation of family counseling in prisons
and jails. 81

Drug testing also is a tool for early detection.
Pretrial programs have used drug testing to
predict and reduce pretrial misconduct. A
number of evaluations of pretrial drug testing
programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s
showed that drug tests results were predictive of
pretrial misconduct in certain jurisdictions but
that the testing itself did not deter defendants’
failure to appear in court. 74

Aftercare for alcohol and other drug treatment
can be provided by the Veterans Administration
(VA) for inmates who are veterans upon release.
State and federal corrections systems can assist
in verifying VA eligibility and can then transfer
aftercare responsibility to a VA medical
center. 83 To this end, the State of Florida has
developed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 84

Although highly accurate and efficient screening
methods have been developed for adult
arrestees, 75 subjecting non-convicted adult
criminals to mandatory screening or drug testing
has been implemented in only a handful of
jurisdictions. 76 This is due in part to questions
raised about constitutional protections from
unreasonable search and seizure and the legal
assumption of innocence. 77 To date, courts have
upheld the constitutionality of pretrial drug
testing while requiring that collection and testing
procedures meet the legal test of
reasonableness. 78

Agreement between the Florida Department
of Corrections and the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Integrated
Service Networks (VISN) 8 and 16
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the
general conditions and joint processes that will
enable the Department (of Corrections) to
collaborate as partners with the VA to implement
effective re-entry programs and services for current
inmates identified as military veterans who will be
potentially eligible for VA care and services upon
their release from incarceration, and such military
veteran offenders that are on community
supervision after their release. 82

Rather than using screening or drug testing alone
as deterrents, they more appropriately can be
used to identify those in need of intervention or
treatment and to target services in order to
reduce risky and dependent substance use,

--Secretary Walter A. McNeil
Florida Department of Corrections

-78-

Alternatives to Incarceration

Brooklyn Treatment Court

The use of treatment alternatives to incarceration
has gained momentum in the past decade as
witnessed by a rapid expansion of drug
treatment courts, prosecutorial diversion
programs and treatment interventions supervised
by probation and parole; the accumulation of
related evaluation studies; and the emergence of
advocacy coalitions for treatment alternatives.
These criminal justice innovations make
treatment for substance use disorders a central
component, establish collaboration between
justice authorities and treatment providers and
hold the offender legally accountable for
treatment compliance.

Judge Jo Ann Ferdinand of the Brooklyn
Treatment Court reports that the women who
came to her court tended “to have more serious
addictions than the men, have lost more in their
lives and have fewer resources.” Female
participants also were waiting twice as long as
their male counterparts to enter treatment,
leading to poorer outcomes. Her court took
steps to address the distinct problems facing
female substance-involved offenders, including:

Despite the encouraging growth of diversion and
treatment opportunities and evidence of their
cost effectiveness, still only a fraction of
substance-involved offenders have benefited
from treatment alternative programs. For
example, of the 1.5 million arrestees likely to
have substance use disorders, the Urban
Institute’s Justice Policy Center estimates that
just over 109,900 meet current eligibility
requirements for drug court yet there were only
55,300 available drug court slots. 85
No one wants fewer people in prison than the
people who run prisons. We get paid the same
whether there are 10,000 or 5,000 prisoners,
and I’d much rather have 5,000. 86
--Commissioner Martin F. Horn
New York City Department of Corrections

Probation. Deferred, low-probability threats of
severe punishment are the basis for most
probation systems in the country, yet these
systems tend to let repeated violations go
unpunished. When punishments eventually are
assigned, they tend to be lengthy and expensive
sentences. In 2004 Circuit Judge Steve Alm,
with the help of other criminal justice and drug
treatment professionals, created Hawaii’s
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement
(HOPE) program. The program targets
offenders at risk of having their probation
revoked. Program participants are informed at

-79-

•

Expanding their intake form from eight to
25 questions to better identify
psychological problems and adding items
to help reveal sexual and emotional abuse;

•

Hiring a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner to
conduct on-site examinations which cut out
weeks of wasted time and helped prevent
participants from losing their motivation to
change their behavior;

•

Creating a course of treatment catering to
women with less severe co-occurring
psychological disorders which incorporates
individual psychotherapy, support groups,
parenting classes and therapy sessions for
mothers and their children;

•

Establishing an on-site health clinic to
address other medical problems women are
more likely to face, for instance 10 percent
of female participants vs. three percent of
male participants reported having the HIV
virus;

•

Linking their program with the Brooklyn
Family Court and the City’s Administration
for Child Services so case managers can
help mothers navigate both systems and
reestablish contact with children placed in
foster or kinship care;

•

Hiring a vocational counseling specialist to
help participants build job-readiness skills,
find employment and find childcare
options;

•

Creating adjunct programs to encourage
lower-level offenders to enter treatment
and provide poor performing participants a
last chance through an in-prison TC
program. 87

pending completion of the DTAP program at
which point the guilty plea is withdrawn and the
charges are dismissed. Failure to complete the
program results in sentencing on the outstanding
charges.

warning hearings that the rules of probation will
be strictly enforced using immediate and highprobability threats of mild punishment and that
they will be required to submit to weekly or biweekly random drug tests. Probation violations
and failed drug tests lead to swift arrests and
short stays in jail, as little as two days. Sentence
length increases for each successive violation. 88

CASA’s evaluation found that DTAP graduates
compared with a matched group at two years
post-program or post-release had 33 percent
lower rearrest rates (39 vs. 58 percent), and were
87 percent less likely to return to prison (two vs.
15 percent). DTAP participants also were three
and a half times likelier to be employed than
they were before arrest. These results were
achieved at about half the average cost of
incarceration. 92

Probationers who continually are unable to
comply on their own are required to enter
treatment. Treatment services are available to
all HOPE probationers on a voluntary basis. 89
Preliminary results from a randomly assigned
comparison showed that six-months after
starting the program, HOPE participants reduced
their missed appointments by 85 percent and
their positive urinalyses by 91 percent. The
threat of consistent sanctions alone was enough
to deter the drug use of 60 percent of program
participants. The rearrest rate of a comparison
group of probationers was three times higher
than for HOPE participants, and the comparison
group’s arrest rate for non-technical violations
was 111 percent higher than HOPE participants.
HOPE probationers also were significantly less
likely to have their probation revoked (nine
percent vs. 31 percent). 90

Drug Courts. The drug treatment court
movement that began in 1989 provides another
sign of change in American drug policy. Drug
courts were developed as alternative-to-prison
programs for non-violent substance-involved
offenders that integrate treatment for substance
use disorders, mandatory drug testing, sanctions
and incentives, and transitional services in a
judicially supervised court setting. 93 Substanceinvolved offenders are generally referred to
these programs by judges, attorneys or law
enforcement personnel. 94 Participants are then
put on probation while they attend treatment *
and regularly scheduled monitoring sessions
with court and treatment staff. Upon program
completion, offenders may have their charges
dropped, probation rescinded or have their
original sentences reduced. 95 Usually program
dropouts face the threat of imprisonment. 96

Prosecutorial-based Diversion. Experience
with alternatives to incarceration such as the
Brooklyn Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison
Program (DTAP) shows that eligibility can
safely be expanded to a broad range of
offenders. 91 The Brooklyn DTAP program is a
residential drug treatment program with
educational, vocational and social support
services for non-violent, drug addicted, repeat
felony offenders. It was one of the first
residential drug treatment programs directed at
drug sellers who also are drug dependent. A
five year evaluation conducted by CASA found
that on average DTAP participants had five
previous drug arrests and had spent four years
behind bars.

As of 2009, there were more than 2,000 drug
courts serving just under half of the counties in
the United States. 97 According to an analysis by
the Government Accountability Office, drug
court participants are rearrested and reconvicted
fewer times for fewer felonies and drug offenses
than their peers. While, most drug courts
resulted in higher court costs than standard
criminal justice services, all the programs that
tracked costs and savings from reduced criminal
justice and victimization costs resulted in

The program originally was designed to defer
prosecution but was changed to a deferred
sentencing program. The defendant pleads
guilty to a felony but sentencing is deferred

*

Treatment modalities differ based on programs’
specific requirements.

-80-

repeat offenders with at least two prior DUI
arrests. 103 As of 2007 there were only 110
designated DUI Courts and 286 DUI/Drug Court
hybrids in the country, leaving room for
program expansion. 104

positive net benefits, ranging from $1,000 to
$15,000 per participant. 98
For the addicted and the alcoholic, a
traditional approach of incarceration or
regular probation, whether long- or short-term,
does not provide the impetus for the change
necessary to stop the criminal behavior.
Incarceration is not a cure for addiction. In
sharp contrast, the intensive therapeutic
approach of drug treatment courts--using
aggressive drug and alcohol testing, mandatory
treatment, and continual monitoring--can in
fact engineer the changes necessary to break
the cycle of criminal behavior and transform
lives. 99

California’s Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act. One example of a statewide
approach to providing alternatives to
incarceration for substance-involved offenders
was the passage of California’s Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA, also known
as Proposition 36). 105 California voters, who in
1994 initiated the ‘three strikes’ movement with
the passage of Proposition 184, 106 approved
SACPA by 61 percent in 2000. 107 This Act
went into effect in July 2001, with $120 million
for treatment services allocated annually for five
years. It allows first and second time
nonviolent, simple drug possession offenders the
opportunity to receive treatment for substance
use disorders instead of incarceration. 108

--The Honorable Patrick C. Bowler

The Multnomah County STOP drug court that
has served Oregon for more than 18 years has
undergone multiple comprehensive reviews and
demonstrated exceptional results. During its
first 10 years of operation, 6,502 offenders
participated in the Multnomah drug court. Five
years after entering the STOP program
offenders, on average, are rearrested less often
(four arrests vs. six arrests) and spend fewer
days in jail (46 days vs. 75 days), prison (80
days vs. 105 days) or on probation (529 days vs.
661 days) than their peers who go through the
standard adjudication process. The avoided
criminal justice costs of their drug court
participation totaled more than $50 million. The
reductions in violent and property crime also
resulted in $35 million in avoided victimization
costs bringing the total savings to $85 million. 100

The diversion of prison-bound offenders to
community-based drug treatment facilities added
80,000 SACPA admissions to California’s
licensed treatment system during the first two
years of implementation. Under such a sudden
increase in treatment demand, most SACPA
clients were diverted to outpatient treatment
which was a more affordable but an inadequate
modality of intervention for some addicted
offenders, such as those who are homeless or
who have a co-occurring mental health disorder
and require more structured care. Whereas the
reliance on outpatient treatment may have
allowed California’s treatment system to absorb
effectively SACPA clients without dramatically
increasing its staffing and service capacities,
researchers concluded that the availability of
treatment slots for non-SACPA clients may have
declined in most California counties due to the
displacement of voluntary non-SACPA clients
by SACPA clients. 109

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Courts use a
drug court model to deter repeat DUI offenders
from continuing to drink and drive by providing
them with treatment in lieu of traditional
sentencing procedures. 101 DUI participants from
DUI Courts across the country are three times
less likely to be rearrested and 19 times less
likely to be rearrested for a DUI compared to
their peers who receive traditional probation. 102
The cost-effectiveness of DUI Courts has not
been well established in general; however
research suggests that the program is an
effective alternative when focused on serving

While similar legislative or referendum
initiatives have been considered in at least 15
other states, 110 they failed in many of these
states. In 2009, California lawmakers cut
SACPA funding by 83 percent, or $90 million,
due to growing budget constraints. 111
-81-

days, but no more than one year. Following
treatment completion, participants are provided
with an aftercare plan including a referral to
local treatment providers appropriate to their
needs. Kentucky law makers included a
provision that allows participants who choose to
leave the program to count their time
participating in the program toward their new
prison sentence. 117 This component addresses
the controversial practice, traditionally enacted
by some drug courts and diversion programs, of
sending treatment drop-outs to prison to serve
the entirety of the sentence resulting in longer
periods of court custody. 118

The Promise of Rehabilitation
Years after SACPA went into effect, California
voters were rewarded with reduced prison
admissions for drug possession. 112 SACPA
demonstrated that the positive impact of diverting
drug offenders to treatment is greater than the
impact of using incarceration to prevent drugrelated crime. 113 SACPA saved the State of
California $173 million on the first-year cohort
alone through reduced jail and prison admissions,
and increased tax revenues. 114

Kansas-Alternative to Incarceration for Drug
Possession Cases. Kansas enacted Senate Bill
123 in 2003, providing an alternative to prison
for individuals charged with possession of
illegal drugs. Program eligibility includes
nonviolent offenders with first- or second-time
possession charges (excluding first-time
marijuana possession). In lieu of prison,
offenders attend a state certified drug treatment
program. 115

We are never going to build our way out of there
being crime. We don’t want to put that many
people in jail, and we can’t afford to. 119
--Chief District Court Judge Joseph Turner,
Guilford County, NC

Education, Training and Employment

Eligible offenders are given a standardized
substance misuse assessment by a trained and
certified treatment provider and a standardized
risk assessment by a court services or
community corrections officer. Based on these
assessments, sentencing courts determine the
proper length and modality of treatment
programs and community supervision (not
exceeding 18 months). While in treatment,
offenders with a high risk of leaving the
program and recidivating will be supervised by
community correctional services and low-risk
offenders will be supervised by court service
officers. Community corrections staff also work
with treatment staff to ensure the effective
supervision of offenders. 116

Assuring that the education, training and
employment needs of offenders are met is an
essential component of recovery and long term
disease management. 120 One promising practice
is California’s New Start prison-to-employment
program which is based on the State’s
recognition that key to increasing public safety
is employment of parolees. To increase the
likelihood that parolees will obtain and retain
jobs, the State has strengthened the link between
in-prison rehabilitation programs and
employment by:
•

Using labor market data to determine the
types of jobs that will actually be available
in each county;

Kentucky’s Diversion Program. In early 2009,
new legislation was enacted in Kentucky that
allows substance-involved offenders to
participate in diversion programs in lieu of their
trial and potential prison sentences. Felony
substance-involved offenders can receive pretrial screenings; those with recent substance use
problems can volunteer to enter a secure
treatment program for a period of at least 90

•

Matching training and work opportunities in
prison to jobs available in communities;

•

Providing documents needed to secure
employment prior to release from prison
(e.g., social security card, birth certificate,
selective service registration, etc.);

-82-

•

•

Providing essential job
prerequisites such as
resumes, trade certificates,
licenses, trade union
membership, etc.; and
Providing support to seek,
secure and maintain
employment through a
collaborative partnership
with the community. 121

Recognizing the importance of
education to reduce recidivism,
New Jersey recently enacted
legislation requiring that
incarcerated individuals attain
the 12th grade education
proficiency level. 122

Costs and Benefits of
Treatment

Table 7.1

Direct Financial Costs Associated with the Incarceration of
Substance-Involved Offenders, 2006
Federal
(190,844)

State
(1,302,129)

Local
(766,010)

Total
(2,258,983)

Number of
substance164,521
1,101,779
648,664
1,914,964
involved inmates
Annual prison cost
per inmate
$27,247
$27,370
$20,769
$25,144
Total annual
incarceration costs
$4.48
$30.16
$13.47
$48.11
for substancebillion
billion
billion
billion
involved inmates
Source: Compensation Board (2004), CASA analysis of the Corrections
Yearbook: Adult Corrections (2002), the Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (2002) [Data files], and
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in 2006.
Note: Dollar numbers reported in the table are expressed in 2006 dollars
(converted by the online inflation calculator of the Department of Labor,
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl).

inmate is approximately $69--$25,144 a
year. * 126 (Table 7.1) Annual state incarceration
costs range from a low of $10,700 in Alabama to
a high of $65,599 in Maine. 127

In all cost-benefit analyses of criminal justicebased treatment for adult offenders that CASA
could identify, the monetary benefits of
treatment--including reduced crime,
incarceration and health care--outweighed the
costs. 123 According to a comprehensive review
by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the
return of investing in treatment may exceed
12:1; that is, every dollar spent on treatment can
reduce future burden costs by $12 or more in
reduced substance-related crime and criminal
justice and health care costs. 124

Available research of the cost of evidence-based
in-prison treatment and aftercare equals an
estimated $9,745 per inmate--$3,778 for inprison treatment and $5,967 for aftercare. † 128 If
all inmates with substance use disorders who are
not receiving treatment were provided this level
of care in the year before and after release, the
total cost would be $12.6 billion. While such
expenditures are in many cases considered
prohibitive as state and county governments are
struggling to catch up with ballooning prison
and jail spending, such investments are the only
way to curtail escalating corrections costs.
Further, we would break even on this investment
in one year if less than 11 percent of those
receiving such services remained substance and
crime free and employed--a conservative success

In 2005, federal, state and local governments
spent $74 billion in court, probation, parole and
incarceration costs of substance-involved adult
and juvenile offenders. In comparison, federal
and state governments spent only $632 million
on prevention and treatment for substanceinvolved offenders. 125 CASA estimates that in
2006, they spent approximately $48 billion alone
on the costs of incarceration for prison and jail
inmates. The average cost per day to house an

*

The total average cost per day to house an inmate
was computed by taking the weighted average of the
federal, state and local costs.
†
Original estimates updated to reflect cost of living
increases.
-83-

rate. For each succeeding year that these
inmates remained substance and crime free and
employed, we would realize an economic benefit
of $90,953 per inmate, including:
•

$6,100 in reduced crime costs,
conservatively assuming that drug-using exinmates would have committed 100 crimes
per year with $50 in property and
victimization costs per crime;

•

$9,000 in reduced arrest and prosecution
costs (assuming that they would have been
arrested twice per year);

•

$25,144 in reduced incarceration costs
(assuming that one of those re-arrests would
have resulted in a one year prison sentence);

•

$5,937 in reduced health care costs (the
difference in annual health care costs
between those with substance use disorders
and those without such disorders); and

•

$44,772 in economic benefits (the average
income for an employed high school
graduate multiplied by the standard
economic multiplier of 1.5 for estimating the
local economic effects of a wage).

California
Substance-abuse treatment, vocational training
and educational programs all scheduled to be
cut back...The rehabilitation services are being
slashed at the moment when they may be most
needed. The state is under pressure from federal
courts to reduce overcrowding driven by the
high rate at which inmates return to prison after
they are released. 129
--Michael Rothfeld, Reporter
Los Angeles Times

Cost-benefit analysis studies conducted in
different settings, on different samples, using
different methodologies and during different
historical periods consistently demonstrate
robust monetary savings from treatment for
substance use disorders, primarily from
significant reductions in criminal justice
expenditures associated with lower recidivism
and in medical expenditures linked to improved
health status. 130

Vermont Initiative to Reduce Costs
Facing particularly rapid growth in its prison
population, 131 the State of Vermont in May of
2008 implemented several diversion, and inprison and reentry treatment programs for
offenders with substance use disorders. These
included screening and assessment of criminal
offenders prior to sentencing to identify
candidates appropriate for prison-based or
community-based treatment, the closing and
restructuring of several prisons and the
establishment of a work camp where treatment
for offenders with substance use disorders would
be provided. 132 These measures were projected
to accrue a cumulative savings of $54 million by
2018. The State also planned to invest the $3.9
million saved in the first two years of the reform
in the expansion of the treatment capacity within
prisons and in the community and the
enhancement of community-based interventions
for recidivism reduction. 133

(See Appendix A, Methodology)
Even greater opportunities for cost control come
from treatment based diversion programs
because additional court and treatment costs
generally are lower than costs of incarceration.
Some states, however, have taken the opposite
approach, citing growing budget deficits as
reason to cut alcohol and other drug treatment
programs. It is not uncommon for governments
to cut substance-related programming under the
mistaken notion that such services are ancillary
rather than a vital part of economic stability and
public safety.

-84-

Chapter VIII

Recommendations for Policy and Practice
Twelve years ago, CASA proposed a
comprehensive set of recommendations for
addressing the substance use problems of the
criminal justice population and their resulting
costs. Since that time, these recommendations
have been echoed repeatedly in other policy
reports, scientific guidelines and clinical
manuals published by the most authoritative
government agencies in the area of addiction. 5
There also has been a growing body of
knowledge about the science of addiction, and
increasing array of science-based interventions,
many of which are referenced in this report, that
demonstrate cost-effective alternatives to current
incarceration policies and practices. To date,
however, these recommendations and guidelines
have not been adopted as mandatory practice nor
have cost effective alternatives been adopted in
any comprehensive way.

Examples of How Addiction Treatment
and Aftercare Can Reduce Recidivism
•

Delaware: 52 percent completing prisonbased treatment and aftercare, including
work release under community supervision,
were likely to be rearrested five years post
release compared with 77 percent not
participating in the TC program or in
aftercare; 1

•

California: Completion of prison-based TC
treatment plus aftercare yields 8.2 percent reincarceration within one year compared with
49.7 percent of those in control group with
no treatment or aftercare; 2

•

Illinois: Completion of prison-based
treatment plus aftercare yields 52 percent
lower likelihood of being returned to prison
than comparison group with no treatment; 3

•

New York: Graduates of prosecutorial-based
diversion program were 87 percent less
likely to return to prison two years after
graduating the program compared with a
matched group two years after leaving
prison. 4

In fact, since CASA’s 1998 call for reform, costs
to government of our failure to take action have
skyrocketed. In the face of these facts,
continued failure to meet the health care needs
of inmates with substance use disorders or to
intervene with those at high risk of developing
such disorders makes no sense whether one’s
interest is reducing crime and increasing public
safety, reducing costs to government or assuring
appropriate health care to those in need.
As this report shows, the facts are:

-85-

•

Science has demonstrated that risky
substance use is a public health problem and
dependence is a medical problem.

•

Failure to prevent and treat the condition
increases crime and its costs to society.

•

Public opinion supports treatment for
substance-involved offenders.

•

A range of cost effective alternatives exist.

courts and prosecutorial diversion programs,
for substance-involved offenders.

This report is designed to demonstrate that
investment in evidence-based prevention and
treatment for the criminal justice population is
fiscally sound and politically palatable; and to
provide a strategy to assure appropriate care and
treatment for substance-involved offenders and
reduce substance-involved crime and its costs to
society.
CASA recommends that:

•

Eliminate mandatory sentences that
eliminate the possibility of alternative
sentencing and/or parole, and expand the use
of supervised release.

•

Keep jails, prisons and other correctional
housing and facilities free of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs.

•

For inmates with substance use disorders,
provide comprehensive pre-release planning
to assure transition to a broad range of
integrated reentry services including
addiction treatment and management,
mutual support programs, other health care
services, education and training, and family
support.

•

Train and assist police, prosecutors, public
defenders, judges, corrections, parole and
probation officers, medical directors of
prisons and jails and other criminal justice
personnel in best practices for recognizing
substance-involved offenders and knowing
how to respond.

•

Recognize Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
(FASD) as a mitigating factor in criminal
cases, develop alternative sentencing options
for those suffering from these disorders and
provide individuals with FASD appropriate
services and support at every point in the
criminal justice process, from arrest to
imprisonment to reentry.

The Criminal Justice System:
•

Use appropriately trained health care
professionals to:
o

o

o

•

Screen every arrestee for risky substance
use and addictive disorders, including
tobacco, alcohol, illicit and controlled
prescription drugs; use screening results
to inform decision-making in pretrial
supervision and sentencing. Connect
arrestees who screen positive and who
are not convicted with appropriate
interventions and treatments.
For convicted offenders who screen
positive, provide comprehensive health,
educational and social assessments.
Based on assessment results, provide
integrated services including evidencebased addiction treatment for all who
need it, and appropriate care for cooccurring physical and mental health
problems. Also offer and encourage
participation in literacy, education, job
training and parenting programs, and
increase the availability of religious,
spiritual, and mutual support services.

Federal, State and Local Governments:

Offer tailored treatment and support
services to substance-involved
offenders, including juveniles in the
adult corrections system, female
offenders, inmates with co-occurring
disorders, inmates with minor children,
veterans and multiple recidivists.

Expand the use of treatment-based
alternatives to jail and prison, including drug

-86-

•

Require that addiction treatment be provided
in criminal justice settings, that it be
medically managed and that
pharmacological treatments be available.

•

Require the accreditation of prison- and jailbased treatment programs and providers
through organizations such as the American
Correctional Association (ACA), the Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) at

SAMHSA or the National Commission on
Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). Such
accreditation should require adherence to
best practice standards and include periodic
performance reviews by independent experts.
•

Expand federal grants to states and localities
for integrated evidence-based and promising
practices including pre-trial jail diversion
programs, prosecutorial diversion options,
drug courts, prison-based treatment
programs, and community-based treatment
and aftercare programs for released
offenders upon re-entry into the community;
require and provide resources for the
documentation of impact.

•

Implement a large pilot program in the
Bureau of Prisons and in at least one large
state corrections system to offer the full
range of best practices from arrest to reentry
and aftercare and to document costs and
benefits.

•

Educate public officials about the nature of
addiction, the effectiveness of treatment, the
social and economic benefits of providing
treatment to offenders with substance use
disorders and the importance of tracking
outcomes.

•

Forge partnerships between criminal justice
facilities on the federal, state and local levels
and community-based health, education and
service providers and recovery support
programs to increase access to effective
aftercare services, including employment,
for released offenders and expand use of
evidence-based practices.

•

Provide family and social support, education
and health services--including substance use
prevention, intervention and treatment--to
children of inmates.

-87-

-88-

Appendix A

Data Analysis Methodology
To conduct this study, CASA analyzed data
from the following sources:
1. Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities,1991 and 2004; 1
2. Survey of Inmates in State Federal
Correctional Facilities,1991 and 2004; 2
3. Survey of Inmates in Local Jails,1989 and
2002; 3
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in
1996 and in 2006; 4
5. Federal Justice Statistics Program Website,
data for 1998 and 2004; 5
6. Crime in the United States, 1998 and 2004; 6
7. Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1998 and
2004; 7
8. State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons,
2004-Statistical Tables; 8
9. National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH), 2006; 9
10. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS),
2006; 10
11. Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections,
2002. 11
These are the most recent data sets available for
this type of analysis.

Inmate Data Analysis
The Survey of Inmates in State and Federal
Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004) and the
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and 2002)
were used to provide estimates of the prevalence
and correlates of substance involvement and
substance use disorders among prison and jail
-89-

inmates. The prevalence rates (i.e., percent of a
specific inmate population with a determined
characteristic) were derived directly from the
weighted datasets. *

inmates were interviewed in the 1991 and 1997
surveys.
These surveys provide nationally representative
data on inmates held in state prisons and
federally-owned and operated prisons. A twostage sampling procedure was used: prisons
were selected in the first stage and inmates
within sampled prisons were selected in the
second stage. Weights for estimating
populations were included with the data.

To calculate the prevalence levels (i.e., the
number of inmates with a determined
characteristic), CASA applied the prevalence
rates obtained from the weighted datasets to the
prison and jail population estimates published in
Prisoners in 1996 and in 2006 by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). This calculation
provided the estimated number of inmates under
each correctional authority, the estimated total
number of inmates across all correctional
authorities and the estimated percentage of
inmates across all correctional authorities with a
determined characteristic.

Data collection for the 1991 surveys occurred
during June, July and August 1991 when
inmates in both types of facilities were
confidentially interviewed; data collection for
the 2004 surveys occurred from October 2003
through May 2004 when personal interviews and
computer-assisted personal interviews were
conducted. Inmates were asked about their
current offense and sentence, criminal history,
family and personal background, gun possession
and use, prior alcohol and other use and
treatment, and educational programs and other
services provided while in prison. The 1991
survey was the first time the federal Bureau of
Prisons, using a questionnaire developed by
BJS, interviewed inmates in their population at
the same time that the Survey of Inmates in State
Correctional Facilities was conducted.

When individual percentages for specific
correctional authorities are reported, only data
from 1989/2002 (local jails) or 1991/2004
(prisons) are presented in the text and the tables.
When estimates of actual numbers of inmates or
percentages across all correctional authorities
are reported, the 1989/2002 and 1991/2004
percentages have been applied to the 1996/2006
estimates of the prison population.

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, 1991 and 2004

For the 1991 surveys, a total of 6,572 interviews
were completed for the federal survey and
13,986 for the state survey, for overall response
rates of 93.4 percent in the federal survey and
93.7 percent in the state survey. A total of
14,499 state prison inmates and 3,686 federal
prison inmates completed the interview in the
2004 surveys. The overall response rates for
state and federal inmates were 89.1 percent and
84.6 percent, respectively.

The 1991 Survey of Inmates in Federal
Correctional Facilities (SIFCF) was conducted
for the Bureau of Prisons and the Survey of
Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)
for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census. The 2004 data series was
sponsored and designed by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. Prior surveys of state prison
inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986,
1991 and 1997. Sentenced federal prison

Based on the completed interviews, estimates for
the entire population were developed using
weighting factors derived from the original
probability of selection in the sample. These
factors were adjusted for variable rates of nonresponse across strata and inmates’
characteristics. The sample from the federal
facilities was weighted to the total known
sentenced population at midyear 1991 and 2004.

*

The final weight is the product of the basic weight
(which for each sampled inmate is the inverse of the
probability of selection) adjusted for drug subsampling, facility populations, duplicate sampling in
very small facilities, failed interviews and control
count ratio.
-90-

probability of selection in the sample. These
factors were adjusted for variable rates of nonresponse across strata and inmate characteristics.

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1989 and
2002
The 1989 and 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails were conducted for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau. This
survey, conducted every five to six years,
provides nationally representative data on
persons held prior to trial and on those convicted
offenders serving sentences in local jails or
awaiting transfer to prison. Similar surveys of
jail inmates were conducted in 1972, 1978, 1983,
1989 and 1996.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoners in
1996 and 2006
CASA consulted the federal Bureau of Justice
Statistics to find the most accurate estimates of
prison populations in 1996 and 2006. In 1996,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 105,544
federal inmates, 1,076,625 state inmates and
518,492 local inmates for a total incarcerated
population of 1,700,661. In 2006, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics reports 190,844 federal inmates,
1,302,129 state inmates and 766,010 local
inmates for a total incarcerated population of
2,258,983.

The sample design was a stratified two-stage
selection, in which jails were selected in the first
stages and inmates to be interviewed were
selected in the second stage. Weights for
estimating populations were included with the
data. *

These reports were used to estimate the number
of inmates with a determined characteristic.

For the 1989 survey, personal interviews were
conducted during July, August and September of
1989. For the 2002 survey, personal interviews
were conducted from January through April
2002. Census Bureau interviewers collected
data on individual characteristics of jail inmates,
current offenses, sentences and time served,
criminal histories, jail activities, conditions and
programs, prior drug and alcohol use and
treatment, medical and mental health conditions
and health care services provided while in jail.
The 1989 survey included a total of 5,675
interviews, yielding an overall response rate of
92.3 percent. The overall response rate for the
2002 survey included a final sample of 6,982
local jail inmates; the response rate was 84.1
percent.

Methodological Differences
Between CASA’s Behind Bars
Report in 1998 and this Report
In this report, CASA made the following
changes in analysis from CASA’s first release of
Behind Bars (1998):
•

Based on the completed interviews, estimates for
the entire population were developed using
weighting factors derived from the original
*

The weighting procedure consisted of a base weight
for each inmate and four adjustment factors that
produced the final weight for the survey. These
adjustments were: the jail non-interview adjustment,
the inmate non-interview adjustment, the 1999
national jail census ratio adjustment and the 2001
Sample Survey of Jails ratio adjustment.

-91-

Inclusion of all inmates in local jails.
CASA’s 1998 report focused on those
convicted of a crime. Because more than
half of the local jail population was
unconvicted inmates who were being held
for probation/parole violation hearings,
awaiting arraignment or waiting to stand
trial, the local jail analysis was restricted to
those inmates who had been convicted of a
crime (48.1 percent of local jail inmates).
The federal and state datasets were not
similarly restricted since they included only
0.6 percent of federal inmates and 1.4
percent of state inmates who were being
held for trial. This expansion helps us
understand the range of substance use
problems of all offenders held in local
jails.

•

(NSDUH), 2006 contained comparable
variables and thus allowed for a consistent
comparison variable across those datasets.

Expansion of the definition of “alcoholinvolved offender.” In our original report,
the definition used for “alcohol-involved
offender” was an inmate who was under the
influence of alcohol at the time of the
offense or was incarcerated for drunk
driving and no other offense, and who never
used drugs regularly. For this update and
our revised 1996 analysis, we expanded the
definition of “alcohol-involved offender” to
include an inmate who violated any alcohol
law, was under the influence of alcohol at
the time of offense or had a history of
alcohol abuse.

This change involved adding a category of
‘had a substance use disorder’ (i.e. met the
appropriate DSM criteria for abuse or
dependence to alcohol, prescription drugs,
or other illicit drugs) to our criteria for
substance-involved inmates. While most
inmates with substance use disorders also
met criteria for one or more other categories
of substance-involved inmates, a total
60,907 inmates only met criteria for
substance use disorders and did not fit into
any of the other categories. CASA included
these inmates in its 2006 analysis, but to
better understand the impact of the addition
of these 60,907 inmates to the analysis, we
also estimated the change between 1996 and
2006 without the inclusion of these
offenders. The results are presented in the
tables below.

These two changes resulted in a slight
overall decrease in the percent of offenders
who were substance involved in 1996--79
percent vs. 80 percent. The percent of
substance-involved federal (80 percent) and
state (81 percent) remained the same. The
difference was in the percent of substanceinvolved local jail inmates (73 percent vs. 77
percent).
•

Inclusion of all inmates who have
a medical diagnosis of substance
abuse or dependence. The 2002
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
and the 2004 Survey of Inmates in
State and Federal Correctional
Facilities included variables
identifying medically diagnosed
abuse of or dependence on
alcohol or other drugs that were
not available at the time of the
1998 CASA report. The National
Survey on Drug Use and Health

Substance-Involved Federal, State and Local Inmates
without the Inclusion of Inmates who Only Meet Criteria for
Having a Substance Use Disorder (n=60,907)
1996
Number
Percent
84,787
80.3
871,636
81.0
380,677
73.4

2006
Number
Percent
160,773
84.2
1,071,131
82.3
622,153
81.2

Federal Prison
State Prison
Local Jail
Total SubstanceInvolved Inmates
1,337,099
78.6
1,854,057
82.1
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and
2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners
in (1996 and 2006).

-92-

property and other
offenses. CASA
obtained the number
of drug, violent,
Increase
Percent
property, and total
1996
2006
1996-2006
Increase
arrests directly from
Used illicit drugs regularly
1,201,158 1,527,506
326,348
27.2
the source. Since the
Under the influence of alcohol
Federal Justice
or other drugs at the time of
703,788
967,046
263,258
37.4
Statistics Program
crime
Website listed more
History of alcohol abuse
403,384
586,490
183,106
45.4
categories of crime
Drug law violation
357,734
567,366
209,632
58.6
offenses than needed
Committed crime for money to
225,623
319,479
93,856
41.6
for the information in
buy drugs
the report, CASA
Alcohol law violation
53,950
99,955
46,006
85.3
subtracted the
Substance-Involved Inmates
1,337,099 1,854,057
516,958
38.7
combined total
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities
number of drug,
(1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004),
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and 2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of
violent and property
Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners in (1996 and 2006).
arrests from total
arrests to arrive at the
number
for
other offenses.
Percent of Inmates Who Are Substance Involved, by Type
without the Inclusion of Inmates who Only Meet Criteria for
CASA used the Federal Bureau
Having a Substance Use Disorder (n=60,907)
Investigation (FBI) Crime in the
Percent Change
United States, 1998 and 2004, to
1996
2006
1996-2006
examine state and local arrest
Used illicit drugs regularly
70.6
67.6
-4.3
trends. CASA separated state
Under the influence of alcohol
and local arrest categories for
or other drugs at the time of
41.4
42.8
+3.5
crime into five basic types of
crime
offense: drug, alcohol, violent,
History of alcohol abuse
23.7
26.0
+9.5
property and other offenses.
Drug law violation
21.0
25.1
+19.4
CASA obtained the numbers for
Committed crime for money to
drug, alcohol, violent, property
buy drugs
13.3
14.1
+6.6
and other offenses directly from
Alcohol law violation
3.2
4.4
+39.5
both sources (Table 29). Since
Substance-Involved Inmates
78.6
82.1
+4.4
the FBI reports listed more
Source: CASA analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
categories of crime offenses than
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
needed for the information in the
Facilities (1991 and 2004), Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (1989 and
2002) [Data files], and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports, Prisoners
report, CASA subtracted the
in (1996 and 2006).
combined total number of drug,
alcohol, violent and property
arrests
from
total
arrests to arrive at the number
Analysis of Arrests, Convictions
for other offenses.
Number of Inmates Who Are Substance Involved, by Type
without the Inclusion of Inmates who Only Meet Criteria for Having a
Substance Use Disorder (n=60,907)

and Sentences

In cases where CASA had access to the number
and not the percentages, CASA obtained the
percentage of each category of arrest crimes by
dividing the number of arrests in each category
by total arrests. CASA calculated the percent
change in number of arrests for each category of
arrest crimes, by subtracting the difference

For the analysis of federal arrests, CASA used
the Federal Justice Statistics Program Website
to obtain the most updated and comparable data
for 1998 and 2004. To analyze federal arrest
data, CASA separated federal arrests for crimes
into four basic types of offense: drug, violent,

-93-

NSDUH 2006 is the 26th in a series, the primary
purpose of which is to measure the prevalence
and correlates of drug use in the United States.
This survey provides data on the use and abuse
of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs among
members of the non-institutionalized U.S.
civilian population aged 12 or older. Each
NSDUH respondent was given an incentive
payment of $30. The survey captures
prevalence estimates of drug use that would not
ordinarily come to the attention of
administrative, medical, or correctional
authorities. In-person interviews with a large
national probability sample seem to be the best
way to estimate drug use in virtually the entire
population of the United States.

between the number of arrests between the years
of 1998 and 2004 and then dividing the
difference by the number of arrests in 1998 in
that category.
For the analysis of federal and state convictions
and sentences, CASA used BJS Felony
Sentences in State Courts, 1998 and 2004 and
the State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons,
2004-Statistical Tables to obtain numbers and
percentages found in the text. Where such
numbers and percentages needed for the report
were not available directly from the source
itself, CASA calculated them in the same
manner as described above for arrest data.

Analysis of Released Offenders

The 2006 NSDUH is the second survey in a
coordinated five-year sample design. The
coordinated design for 2005 through 2009
facilitated a 50 percent overlap in second-stage
units between each two successive years from
2005 through 2009. This design was intended to
increase the precision of estimates in year-toyear trend analyses because of the expected
positive correlation resulting from the
overlapping sample between successive survey
years. The 2006 design allows for computation
of estimates by state in all 50 states plus the
District of Columbia. The sample is weighted to
reflect the United States population in the year
2006 by the variable, analwt_c.

There is no national data set that provides
information on the characteristics and treatment
needs of all released offenders. The closest
proxy is the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH) which identifies the noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and older
who have been conditionally released from
prison--on parole, supervised release or other
restricted release--at any time during the 12
months prior to the survey. No data are
available on those released unconditionally from
prisons or those released from local jails. CASA
used the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) to
examine differences in the receipt of treatment
among those referred by criminal justice
agencies and those referred by other sources.

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2006
To investigate the levels and types of treatment
for substance use disorders obtained by those
individuals who have been referred to treatment
by correctional agencies, CASA analyzed
admissions data from the Treatment Episode
Data Set (TEDS), 2006. TEDS is an
administrative data system providing descriptive
information about the national flow of
admissions to specialty providers of treatment
for substance use disorders. The unit of analysis
is treatment admissions to substance treatment
units receiving federal funding. TEDS is
designed to provide annual data on the number
and characteristics of persons admitted to public
and private nonprofit substance treatment
programs. TEDS is part of a larger data

CASA restricted the analysis of the NSDUH to
those respondents 18 and older and the analysis
of TEDS to admissions of 18-year old clients
and older. This was done to insure the exclusion
of juvenile facility conditionally released
offenders.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH), 2006
To compare the demographic characteristics and
substance use patterns of those conditionally
released in the past year to the general
population, CASA analyzed the data set, the
National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006.

-94-

collection effort, the Drug and Alcohol Services
Information System (DASIS). TEDS is a
continuation of the former Client Data System
(CDS) and, for 1997, covered an estimated 85
percent of admissions to TEDS-eligible
providers, which is 58 percent of admissions to
all known substance treatment providers. These
are the most recent TEDS inclusion rates
available. Missing from TEDS are most
admissions to providers receiving no public
funds or providers reporting to other federal
agencies, such as the Bureau of Prisons,
Department of Defense, Veterans
Administration, and the Indian Health Service.

•

There was no single source of current
expenditures for local jails and the cost estimates
varied widely. To arrive at an estimate, CASA
averaged estimates from studies that either
provided multi-state assessments of jail costs or
provided a comprehensive assessment of within
state jail costs. Two studies met such criteria.
•

Jails and Jail Inmates 1993-94: Census of
Jails and Survey of Jails, 1995, 12 which
reported daily 1993 costs as $40.18 per day
per inmate. Applying the BLS Inflation
Calculator to the 1993 costs yields a $56.06
per day estimate for 2006.

•

A census of jail costs in 2003 13 in Virginia
found that daily costs were $52.69. Using
the BLS Inflation Calculator to 2006 dollars
in an estimate of $57.73 per day.

Analysis of the Costs and Benefits
of Treatment
To calculate the direct costs of incarceration,
CASA used the following sources. If the most
recent data available were prior to 2006, the
federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
inflation calculator was used to adjust costs to
2006 dollars.

The average of these two estimates is $56.90 per
day for jail inmates, and a total annual cost per
inmate of $20,769 in 2006 dollars. The total
annual cost for substance-involved jail inmates
is: $20,769 * 648,664 = $13.47 billion.

For federal expenditures, CASA used data from
The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections
2002:
•

Total reported federal costs in 2002: $4.6
billion, BLS Inflation Calculator to 2006
dollars = $5.2 billion.

•

Annual costs per federal inmate: $5.2
billion / 190,844 = $27,247.

•

Annual costs for all federal substanceinvolved inmates: $27,247 * 164,521 =
$4.48 billion.

To estimate the cost of offering quality treatment
and aftercare to inmates with a substance use
disorder in 2006 that are not currently receiving
treatment, CASA employed the following
methodology:

For state expenditures, CASA used data from
The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections
2002:
•

Total reported state costs in 2002: $31.8
billion, BLS Inflation Calculator to 2006
dollars = $35.6 billion.

•

Annual costs per state inmate: $35.6 billion /
1,302,129 = $27,370.

Annual costs for all state substance-involved
inmates: $27,370 * 1,101,779 = $30.16
billion.

-95-

•

Used the methodology for the inmate data
analysis described above, to estimate the
number the number of federal, state and
local inmates with a substance use disorder
who are not receiving treatment--1,289,858
million inmates.

•

Used the work of McCollister et al 14 to
arrive at an estimate of the cost per inmate
to provide in prison science-based treatment
and aftercare; applied the BLS Inflation
Calculator to convert to 2006 costs
amounting to $9,745 per inmate ($3,778 for

in prison treatment costs and $5,967 for
aftercare).
•

Multiplied the number of inmates with
substance use disorders who are not
receiving treatment (1,289,858 inmates) by
the average cost for in prison treatment and
aftercare ($9,745) to estimate the cost of
providing science-based in prison treatment
and aftercare to all inmates with substance
use disorders who are not receiving
treatment ($12,569,666,210).

To estimate the benefit of keeping one inmate
substance and crime free and employed and to
maintain reasonable comparability with the 1993
cost estimates, CASA used the most recent data
available, or updated estimates from prior
calculations using inflation calculations if
similar data and data sources were not available.
CASA used the following sources:
•

•

Gerstein et al 15 for avoided crime costs.
Using data from over 150,000 participants in
California, the study estimated that victim
and theft losses were lower after one year of
drug treatment by $5,675. While exact
components costs are not able to be
extracted from the study, it was
conservatively assumed that a drug using
inmate would have committed 100 crimes
per year, with $50 in property and
victimization costs per crime; avoiding those
crimes would result in $5,000 savings,
updated using the BLS Inflation Calculator
to $6,100 in 2006 dollars;

•

CASA’s estimate of avoided annual
incarceration costs of $25,144 as presented
in Chapter VII, Table 7.1;

•

CASA’s estimate of avoided health care
costs in 1993. 17 In this report, CASA used
data from the National Medical Expenditure
Survey to calculate the difference in annual
medical costs between those with substance
use disorders and those without such
disorders to be $4,800 per year. Using the
BLS Inflation Calculator, this equals $5,937
in 2006 dollars;

•

The BLS 18 data to calculate the annual
economic benefit of an employed individual.
The BLS estimates that the median income
of a high school (no college) graduate is
$29,849 in 2004 dollars. CASA then
adjusted this amount by the standard
economic multiplier of 1.5 and converted to
2006 dollars using the BLS Inflation
Calculator. These calculations resulted in an
annual economic benefit of $44,772,
adjusted by the standard economic
multiplier of 1.5, then converted to 2006
dollars.

The benefit of keeping one inmate substance and
crime free and employed is therefore $90,953 in
savings from expected reduction in crime costs
($6,100), arrest and prosecution costs ($9,000),
incarceration costs ($25,144), health care costs
($5,937), and economic benefits ($44,772).
If we treated all 1.3 million inmates with
untreated substance use disorders and spent the
$12.6 billion necessary to do so, we would break
even within a year post release if only 10.7
percent of those treated remained substance and
crime free and employed: $12.6 billion /
$90,953 = 138,200, 10.7 percent of the 1.3
million who received treatment and aftercare.

CASA’s 1993 estimate of reduced arrest and
prosecution costs. CASA estimated these
costs by totaling state and local expenditures
for arresting, prosecuting, defending and
supervising substance-involved offenders
and dividing by the total number of arrests,
resulting in $3,638 in non-correctional
expenditures per arrest; CASA assumed that
two arrests would occur per year, resulting
in total avoided arrest and prosecution costs
of $7,276. 16 CASA updated this estimate
using the BLS Inflation Calculator to $9,000
in 2006 dollars;

-96-

Appendix B

Proposed Guidelines for Providing Addiction Treatment
in Prisons and Jails
American Correctional Association
In 1990, the American Correctional Association
(ACA), in cooperation with the Commission on
Accreditation for Corrections, published
Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions
(third edition) * recommending policies and
procedures for clinical management of inmates
with substance use disorders. 1 These
recommendations included:
•

diagnosis of substance use disorders by a
physician;

•

determination by a physician as to whether
an inmate required non-pharmacologicallyor pharmacologically-supported care;

•

implementation of individualized treatment
plans by a multidisciplinary team; and

•

referral to community aftercare upon release
when necessary. 2

National Institute of Corrections
In 1991, the National Institute of Corrections,
through its National Task Force on Correctional
Substance Abuse Strategies, released the report
Intervening with Substance-Abusing Offenders:
A Framework for Action. Twenty-seven specific
recommendations were made in the areas of
clinical assessment, program development,
linkages between correctional institutions and
community-based human service agencies,
recruitment and retention of qualified staff,
design of safe and favorable environments
conducive to behavioral change, and
accountability. In addition to the need for
standardized assessment and individualized
treatment, these guidelines emphasized the
reinforcement of inmates’ behaviors through
*

-97-

Updated in 2003.

concrete rewards and sanctions, the linkage
between prison-based treatment programs and
community-based aftercare services, the need
for drug testing and the importance of ensuring
treatment integrity and identifying effective
therapeutic interventions through process and
impact evaluations. 3

4. clinical strategies;

SAMHSA’s Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment

8. prison-based treatment;

5. offender populations with special needs;
6. treatment in pretrial and diversion;
7. jail-based treatment;

9. treatment for offenders under community
supervision; and

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT) at the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) first
published guidelines for establishing substance
treatment programs in prisons in 1993. 4
CSAT’s efforts to document standards and
guidelines continued into the 2000s with the
publication of a series of Treatment
Improvement Protocol (TIP) reports dealing
with criminal justice issues. These best-practice
guidelines for the treatment of substance use
disorders among offenders draw on the
experience and knowledge of nationally known
clinical, research and administrative experts and
have been distributed to a large number of
facilities and individuals across the country. 5

10. program development.
CSAT also has offered over 100
recommendations that can be considered
standards for treatment and services for
substance-involved offenders. 6

The National Institute on Drug
Abuse
In 2006, the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA) joined the enterprise of providing
guidance to corrections-based treatment
providers and formulated the following researchbased principles for the effective treatment of
substance-abusing offenders: 7

The most recent and updated TIPs for
corrections-based treatment are TIP 21:
Combining Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse
Treatment with Diversion for Juveniles in the
Justice System, TIP 23: Treatment Drug Courts:
Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment with
Legal Case Processing, TIP 30: Continuity of
Offender Treatment for Substance Use
Disorders From Institution to Community, and
TIP 44: Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults
in the Criminal Justice System.
By 2005, CSAT had identified 10 critical areas
in the design and implementation of criminal
justice-based treatment:

•

Drug addiction is a brain disease that affects
behavior.

•

Recovery from drug addiction requires
effective treatment, followed by
management of the problem over time.

•

Treatment must last long enough to produce
stable behavioral changes.

•

Assessment is the first step in treatment.

•

Tailoring services to fit the needs of the
individual is an important part of effective
drug abuse treatment for criminal justice
populations.

•

Drug use during treatment should be
carefully monitored.

1. screening and assessment;
2. triage and placement;
3. treatment planning;

-98-

•

Treatment should target factors that are
associated with criminal behavior.

•

Criminal justice supervision should
incorporate treatment planning for drugabusing offenders, and treatment providers
should be aware of correctional supervision
requirements.

•

Continuity of care is essential for drug
abusers re-entering the community.

•

A balance of rewards and sanctions
encourages pro-social behavior and
treatment participation.

•

Offenders with co-occurring drug abuse and
mental health problems often require an
integrated treatment approach.

•

Medications are an important part of
treatment for many drug abusing offenders.

•

Treatment planning for drug abusing
offenders who are living in or re-entering
the community should include strategies to
prevent and treat serious, chronic medical
conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B
and C, and tuberculosis.

-99-

-100-

Chapter I
Notes
1

Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006b).
3
Gulliver, S. B., Kamholz, B. W., & Helstrom, A. W. (2006).
4
Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. (2004).
Mumola, C. J., & Noonan, M. E. (2009).
5
Kinney, N. T. (2006).
6
Deitch, D. A., Koutesnok, I., & Ruiz, A. (2008).
7
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001).
Daley, M., Love, C. T., Shepard, D. S., Petersen, C. B., White, K. L., & Hall, F. B. (2004).
Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., McCollister, K., French, M., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2004).
Mauser, E., & Kit, V. S. (1994).
8
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
2

-101-

Chapter II
Notes
1

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010s).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010t).
2
Sabol, W. J., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007).
3
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
4
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
5
Walmsley, R. (2007).
6
Pew Center on the States. (2009).
7
Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008).
Walmsley, R. (2007).
8
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
9
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006b).

-102-

Chapter III
Notes
1

Rand, M. (2009).
Maston, C., & Klaus, P. (2009).
2
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Kang, W. (2008).
3
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010d).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010e).
4
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010r).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010e).
5
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010q).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010r).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010d).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010e).
6
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010v).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010w).
7
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010f).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010g).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010j).
8
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2009).
9
Robinson, J. (2005).
10
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
11
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986).
DeLisi, M. (2006).
12
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2008).
13
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986).
DeLisi, M. (2006).
Stoolmiller, M., & Blechman, E. A. (2005).

-103-

Chapter IV
Notes
1

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
2
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
3
McNiel, D. E., Binder, R. L., & Robinson, J. C. (2005).
4
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
5
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
6
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
7
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
8
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
9
Council of State Governments. (2002).
10
Junginger, J., Claypoole, K., Laygo, R., & Crisanti, A. (2006).
Swartz, J. A., & Lurigio, A. J. (2007).
11
McNiel, D. E., Binder, R. L., & Robinson, J. C. (2005).
12
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
13
Pager, D. (2007).
14
Pew Center on the States. (2008).
15
Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002).
Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006).
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2002).
16
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
17
Millay, T. A., Satyanarayana, V. A., O'Leary, C. C., Crecelius, R., & Cottler, L. B. (2009).
18
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
19
Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Saunders, B., Resnick, H. S., Best, C. L., & Schnurr, P. P. (2000).
20
Poehlmann, J. (2005).
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007).
Dallaire, D. H. (2007).
21
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2008).
22
Merrow, K., McGlashan, L., & Lamphere, K. (2008).
23
Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000).
24
Beck, A. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2002).
Sabol, W. J., & Couture, H. (2008).
25
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2009).
26
Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006).
27
Williams, N. H. (2009).
28
Eddy, J. M. & Reid, J. B. (2003).
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007).
29
Williams, N. H. (2009).

-104-

Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006).
30
Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006).
Parke, R. D. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2001).
Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A., IV. (2009).
31
Williams, N. H. (2009).
32
Johnston, D. (1995).
33
Young, N. K., Nakashian, M., Yeh, S., & Amatetti, S. (2007).
Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Saunders, B., Resnick, H. S., Best, C. L., & Schnurr, P. P. (2000).
34
Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006).
35
Mumola, C. J. (2000).
36
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2009).
37
Barry, E., Ginchild, R., & Lee, D. (1995).
Parke, R. D. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2001).
38
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007).
39
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007).
40
Dallaire, D. H. (2007).
41
Dallaire, D. H. (2007).
42
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
43
Maruschak, L. M. (2007).
44
Maruschak, L. M. (2007).
Maruschak, L. M. (1999).
45
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
46
Maruschak, L. M. (2006).
47
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
48
Alter, M. J., Kruszon-Moran, D., Nainan, O. V., & McQuillan, G. M. (1999).
49
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003).
50
Hennessey, K. A., Kim, A. A., Griffin, V., Collins, N. T., Weinbaum, C. M., & Sabin, K. (2008).
51
Munoz-Plaza, C. E., Strauss, S. M., Astone, J. M., Des Jarlais, D. C., & Hagan, H. (2005).
Reindollar, R. W. (1999).
52
Streissguth, A., & Kanter, J. (Eds.). (1997).
Fast, D. K., Conry, J., & Loock, C. A. (1999).
53
Fraser, C. (2008).
54
May, P. A., & Gossage, J. P. (2001).
55
Institute of Medicine. (1996).
56
Fraser, C. (2008).
57
Fast, D. K., & Conry, J. (2004).
Williams, S. J. (2006).
58
Streissguth, A., & Kanter, J. (Eds.). (1997).
59
Burd, L., Selfridge, R. H., Klug, M. G., & Bakko, S. A. (2004).
60
Erickson, S. K., Rosenheck, R. A., Trestman, R. L., Ford, J. D., & Desai, R. A. (2008).
61
Erickson, S. K., Rosenheck, R. A., Trestman, R. L., Ford, J. D., & Desai, R. A. (2008).

-105-

Chapter V
Notes
1

Ramstad, J. (2009, October 8).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
3
Swern, Anne J., First Assistant District Attorney (personal communication, January 24, 2009).
4
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
5
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
6
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
7
Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009).
8
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
Taxman, F., Prerdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007).
9
Taxman, F., Prerdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007).
10
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
11
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002).
12
Goodrum, S., Staton, M., Leukefeld, C., Webster, J. M., & Purvis, R. T. (2003).
13
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000).
14
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000).
15
Kaplan, L. (2003).
16
Human Rights Watch. (2009).
17
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
18
Taxman, F., Prerdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007).
19
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009).
20
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009).
21
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009).
22
Oser, C. B., Knudsen, H. K., Staton-Tindall, M., Taxman, F., & Leukefeld, C. (2009).
23
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009).
24
Marsch, L. A. (1998).
25
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2000).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2009).
26
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009).
27
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004a).
28
Auriacombe, M., Fatseas, M., Dubernet, J., Daulouede, J. P., & Tignol, J. (2004).
Zaric, G. S., Barnett, P. G., & Brandeau, M. L. (2000).
Sullivan, L. E., & Fiellin, D. A. (2005).
Langendam, M. W., van Brussel, G. H., Coutinho, R. A., & van Ameijden, E. J. (2001).
29
Gordon, M. S., Kinlock, T. W., Schwartz, R. P., & O'Grady, K. E. (2008).
30
Magura, S., Lee, J. D., Hershberger, J., Joseph, H., Marsch, L., Shropshire, C., et al. (2009).
31
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2005).
32
Cropsey, K. L., Villalobos, G. C., & Clair, C. L. St. (2005).
Smith-Rohrberg, D., Bruce, R. D., & Altice, F. L. (2004).
33
Smith-Rohrberg, D., Bruce, R. D., & Altice, F. L. (2004).
34
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2010a).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2010b).
2

-106-

35

Kranzler, H. R., & Van Kirk, J. (2001).
Cornish, J. W., Metzger, D., Woody, G. E., Wilson, D., McLellan, A. T., Vandergfift, B., et al. (1997).
37
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009).
38
Gulliver, S. B., Kamholz, B. W., & Helstrom, A. W. (2006).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
39
Lewis, S. G. (2002).
40
Porter, J. (2005).
41
Porter, J. (2005).
42
Lankenau, S. E. (2001).
43
Kauffman, R. M., Ferketich, A. K., & Wewers, M. E. (2008).
44
Collins, T. J. (2008).
Nevada Department of Corrections. (2008).
Michigan Department of Corrections. (2009).
South Carolina Department of Corrections. (2009).
45
Porter, J. (2005).
46
Kauffman, R. M., Ferketich, A. K., & Wewers, M. E. (2008).
47
Lewis, S. G. (2002).
48
Kauffman, R. M., Ferketich, A. K., & Wewers, M. E. (2008).
Lankenau, S. E. (2001).
49
Thompkins, D. (2009).
50
Lewis, S. G. (2002).
Porter, J. (2005).
51
Grimes, J. C. (2009).
52
Gulliver, S. B., Kamholz, B. W., & Helstrom, A. W. (2006).
53
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
54
Campbell, B. K., Wander, N., Stark, M. J., & Holbert, T. (1995).
Dunn, K. E., Sigmon, S. C., Reimann, E., Heil, S. H., & Higgins, S. T. (2009).
Hurt, R. D., Eberman, K. M., Croghan, I. T., Offord, K. P., Davis, L. J., Jr., Morse, R. M., et al. (1994).
Reid, M. S., Fallon, B., Sonne, S., Flammino, F., Nunes, E. V., Jiang, H., et al. (2008).
Shoptaw, S., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Yang, X., Frosch, D., Nahom, D., Jarvik, M. E., et al. (2002).
55
Lewis, S. G. (2002).
56
Lapidus, L., Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D., Allard, P., & Levingston, K. (2005).
57
Lapidus, L., Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D., Allard, P., & Levingston, K. (2005).
58
Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2005).
59
Winfield, I., George, L. K., Swartz, M., & Blazer, D. G. (1990).
60
Kassebaum, P. A. (1999).
61
Greenfield, S. F., & Grella, C. E. (2009).
Hodgins, D. C., el-Guebaly, N., & Addington, J. (1997).
62
Lapidus, L., Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D., Allard, P., & Levingston, K. (2005).
63
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000a).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1997).
Zilberman, M. L. & Blume, S. B. (2005).
Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2005).
64
Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2005).
Kassebaum, P. A. (1999).
Blume, S. B. & Zilberman, M. L. (2009).
Wells, D., & Bright, L. (2005).
65
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2005).
66
Clark, H. W., & Power, A. K. (2009).
67
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999).
68
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997).
36

-107-

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
Sykes, G. M. & Messinger, S. L. (1960).
Kalinich, D. B., & Stojkovic, S. (1985).
Valdez, A. J. (2009).
Compton, T. & Meacham, M. (2005, March 22).
69
Taxman, F., Prerdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002).
70
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002).
71
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010y).
Stephan, J. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2003).
72
Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., Crum, M., Perkins, T., & Richie, B. (2005).
James, D. J. (2004).
73
Lurigio, A. J. (2000).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
74
Hughey, R., & Klemke, L. W. (1996).
Turley, A., Thornton, T., Johnson, C., & Azzolino, S. (2004).
75
Deitch, D. A., Koutesnok, I., & Ruiz, A. (2008).
76
Turley, A., Thornton, T., Johnson, C., & Azzolino, S. (2004).
77
Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. (2004).
78
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S., & Campbell, S. P. (2006).
79
Kupers, T. A. (1999).
Correctional Association of New York. (2004).
80
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
81
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
82
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006).
83
Springer, D. W., McNeece, C. A., & Arnold, E. M. (2003).
84
Sacks, S., & Pearson, F. S. (2003).
McKendrick, K., Sullivan, C., Banks, S., & Sacks, S. (2006).
85
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005b).
86
Hill, C. (2004).
87
Morris, S. M., Steadman, H. J., & Veysey, B. M. (1997).
88
Osher, F., Steadman, H. J., & Barr, H. (2002).
89
Mumola, C. J. (2007).
90
Mumola, C. J., & Noonan, M. E. (2009).
91
Maruschak, L. M. (2006).
92
Maruschak, L. M. (2004).
93
Maruschak, L. M. (2008).
94
Krebs, C. P. (2002).
Young, D. S. (1995).
Flanagan, N. A., & Lo Bue-Estes, C. (2005).
95
Hammett, T. M., Gaiter, J. L., & Crawford, C. (1998).
Devereux, P. G., Whitley, R., & Ragavan, A. (2002).
96
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2002).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000b).
Hammett, T. M., Gaiter, J. L., & Crawford, C. (1998).
97
Laufer, F. N., Arriola, K. R. J., Dawson-Rose, C. S., Kumaravelu, K., & Rapposelli, K. K. (2002).
98
Braithwaite, R. L., & Arriola, K. R. J. (2008).
99
Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. (2004).
100
Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. (2004).
101
Williams, S. J. (2006).
University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit, School
of Law. (2009).

-108-

102

Fast, D. K., & Conry, J. (2004).
Williams, S. J. (2006).
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit, School
of Law. (2009).
103
Burd, L., Selfridge, R. H., Klug, M. G., & Bakko, S. A. (2004).
104
Fast, D. K., & Conry, J. (2004).
Williams, S. J. (2006).
105
Tumulty, B. (2009).
Hicks, G. (2009).
106
Erickson, S. K., Rosenheck, R. A., Trestman, R. L., Ford, J. D., & Desai, R. A. (2008).
107
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006).
108
O'Connor, T. P., & Perreyclear, M. (2002).
Johnson, B. R. (2004).
Kerley, K. R., Matthews, T. L., & Schulz, J. T. (2005).
Thomas, J., & Zaitzow, B. H. (2006).
109
Kinney, N. T. (2006).
110
Shivy, V. A., Wu, J. J., Moon, A. E., Mann, S. C., Holland, J. G., & Eacho, C. (2007).
Blitz, C. L. (2006).
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006).
111
Harlow, C. W. (2003).
112
Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. (1999).
113
Harlow, C. W. (2003).
114
Anonymous. (2008).
115
Ubah, C. B. A. (2004).
116
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid. (2008).
117
Tewksbury, R., & Taylor, J. M. (1996).
118
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid. (2008).
119
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005).
120
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
121
Kinney, N. T. (2006).
122
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2001).
Benda, B. B., & Toombs, N. J. (2002).
Fernander, A., Wilson, J. T., Staton, M., & Leukefeld, C. (2005).
123
Johnson, B. R. (2004).
124
Prison Fellowship. (2005).
125
Chen, G. (2006).
126
Vigdal, G. L., & Stadler, D. W. (1989).
Singleton, N., Pendry, E., Simpson, T., Goddard, E., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., et al. (2005).
Prendergast, M. L., Campos, M., Farabee, D., Evans, W. K., & Martinez, J. (2004).
127
DuPont, R. L., Mieczkowski, T. M., & Newel, R. A. (2005).
128
Crewe, B. (2005).
129
Prendergast, M. L., Campos, M., Farabee, D., Evans, W. K., & Martinez, J. (2004).
130
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
131
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001).
132
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
133
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
134
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
135
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
136
American Correctional Association. (1990).
137
National Institute of Corrections. (1991).

-109-

138

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1993).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
140
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
141
Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (2007).
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
142
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007).
Welsh, W., & Zajac, G. (2004).
143
National Archives and Records Administration. (2001).
144
Angela Bliss, Accreditation Operations Coordinator, National Commission on Correctional Health Care (personal
communication, October 16, 2009).
145
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2004).
146
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004b).
Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Health Solutions, Public Health Division. (2006).
147
Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, & National Judicial College. (2008).
139

-110-

Chapter VI
Notes
1

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010a).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010c).
2
Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2009).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010c).
Bonczar, T. P., & Glaze, L. E. (1999).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010b).
3
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
4
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., et al. (2007).
5
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., et al. (2007).
6
Travis, J. (2005).
7
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
8
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010z).
9
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010z).
10
Abadinsky, H. (2009).
Weisner, C., Matzger, H., Tam, T., & Schmidt, L. (2002).
11
Justice Policy Institute. (2009).
12
Bonczar, T. P. (2009).
13
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010z).
14
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
15
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
16
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
17
Hiller, M. L. (1996).
Sung, H.-E., & Belenko, S. (2005).
18
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
19
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E. L., & Callanan, V. J. (2006).
20
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
21
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998).
22
Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999).
23
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005).
24
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
25
McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O'Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000).
26
McVay, D., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004).
Covington, J. (2001).
27
Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001).
28
U.S. Department of Justice. (1999).
29
Burrell, W. D. (2004).
30
Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E. S., Delano, J., Mitchell, S., Byrne, J. M., Gelb, A., et al. (2004).
31
Petersilia, J. (1999).
Taxman, F. (2010).
32
Cunningham, J. A., Herie, M., Martin, G., & Turner, B. J. (2009).
33
Darnell, M. (2008, September 28).
34
Belenko, S. (2006).
Hagan, J., & Coleman, J. P. (2001).
O'Brien, P. (2006).
O'Connell, D. J., Enev, T. N., Martin, S. S., & Inciardi, J. A. (2007).
35
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006).
36
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999).
37
Office of Applied Studies. (2007).
38
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006a).
39
Olson, D. E., Rozhon, J., & Powers, M. (2009).

-111-

Mears, D. P., Winterfield, L., Hunsaker, J., Moore, G. E., & White, R. (2003).
Wexler, H. K., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999).
Butzin, C. A., Martin, S. S., & Inciardi, J. A. (2005).
41
Wexler, H. K., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999).
42
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004).
43
Olson, D. E., Juergens, R., & Karr, S. P. (2004).
Illinois Government News Network. (2004b).
44
Olson, D. E., Juergens, R., & Karr, S. P. (2004).
45
Illinois Government News Network. (2004b).
46
Winterfield, L., & Castro, J. (2005).
Olson, D. E., Juergens, R., & Karr, S. P. (2004).
47
Winterfield, L., & Castro, J. (2005).
48
Olson, D. E., Juergens, R., & Karr, S. P. (2004).
49
Illinois Government News Network. (2004a).
Illinois Government News Network. (2004b).
50
Olson, D. E., Rapp, J., Powers, M., & Karr, S. P. (2006).
51
Olson, D. E., Rozhon, J., & Powers, M. (2009).
52
Osher, F., Steadman, H. J., & Barr, H. (2002).
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E., & Sacks, S. (2004).
Zanis, D. A., Mulvaney, F., Coviello, D., Alterman, A. I., Savitz, B., & Thompson, W. (2003).
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999).
Burdon, W. M., Messina, N. P., & Prendergast, M. L. (2004).
Wexler, H., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2004).
53
Second Chance Act of 2007, H.R. 1593, 110th Congress, (2008).
54
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 1105, 111th Congress, (2009).
55
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3288, 111th Congress, (2010).
Library of Congress. (2010).
40

-112-

Chapter VII
Notes
1

Rubenstein, T. M. (2009).
Martinson, R. (1974).
Tonry, M. (2004).
Wilson, J. Q. (1983).
3
Tonry, M. (2004).
4
Tonry, M. (1995).
5
Schiraldi, V., Colburn, J., & Lotke, E. (2004).
6
Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (1995).
Tonry, M. (1995).
7
Osler, M. (2007).
Schiraldi, V., Colburn, J., & Lotke, E. (2004).
8
Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (1995).
9
Ehlers, S., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004).
10
American Judicature Society Editorial. (2009).
11
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2002).
Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2007).
12
Lee, R. D., & Rasinski, K. A. (2006).
13
Human Rights Watch. (2008).
14
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003).
15
Wilhelm, D. F., & Turner, N. R. (2002).
16
Drug Policy Alliance. (2009).
17
Zogby International. (2006).
18
Robinson, J. (2005).
19
Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. (2004).
20
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2007).
21
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003).
22
United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005).
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2006).
23
United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005).
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2006).
24
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2008).
25
Scott, J. (2009).
Drug Policy Alliance. (2009a).
26
McLearen, A. M., & Ryba, N. L. (2003).
27
American Medical Association. (2009).
28
McLearen, A. M., & Ryba, N. L. (2003).
29
Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417.
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
30
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976).
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
31
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992).
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
32
Cohen, F. (1993).
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
33
Peters, R. H. & Matthews, C. O. (2003).
Human Rights Watch. (2009).
34
Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, 406 F. Supp. 649 (S.D. Tex. 1975).
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977).
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980).
Peters, R. H. & Matthews, C. O. (2003).
35
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25 (1993).
Schwartzman, L. H. (1994).
2

-113-

36

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25 (1993).
Schwartzman, L. H. (1994).
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE). (2008).
37
Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d. 674 (1996).
Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (1996).
Peters, R. H. & Steinberg, M. L. (2000).
38
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2008).
Dackis, C., & O'Brien, C. (2005).
39
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1993).
40
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
41
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
42
Pallone, N. J., & Hennessy, J. (2003).
Kelley, L., Mueller, D., & Hemmens, C. (2004).
43
Human Rights Watch. (2009).
44
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2003).
Belenko, S., Foltz, C., Lang, M. A., & Sung, H.-E. (2004).
45
Culp, R. F. (2005).
46
Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008).
47
Schlosser, E. (1998, December).
Lapido, D. (2009).
Culp, R. F. (2005).
48
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009).
49
Schlosser, E. (1998, December).
50
Lindgren, S. A. (1997).
Perry, S. W. (2008).
51
Schlosser, E. (1998, December).
52
Moore, M. T. (2009).
Nisperos, N. (2009).
Gramlich, J. (2009).
53
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2007).
54
Tonry, M. (2004).
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001).
55
Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009).
56
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001).
Tonry, M. (2004).
57
Mauer, M. (2003).
Mauer, M. (2007).
Lynch, J. P. (1995).
58
Mauer, M. (2003).
Mauer, M. (2007).
Van Kesteren, J. (2009).
59
Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2003).
60
Lake Research Partners. (2009).
Nagin, D., Piquero, A., Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2006).
Sims, B., & Johnson, E. (2004).
61
Lake Research Partners. (2009).
62
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. (2006).
63
Krisberg, B., & Marchionna, S. (2006).
64
Lee, R. D., & Rasinski, K. A. (2006).
65
Des Jarlais, D. C. (2000).
66
Greene, J., Pranis, K., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006).
67
Torres, S., & Latta, R. M. (2000).
68
Kelley, L., Mueller, D., & Hemmens, C. (2004).
69
Corrections Compendium. (2007).
70
Garner, B. R., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (2007).
-114-

71

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
Fleming, M., Mundt, M. P., French, M. T., Manwell, L. B., Stauffacher, E. A., & Barry, K. L. (2002).
Gentilello, L. M., Ebel, B. E., Wickizer, T. M., Salkever, D. S., & Rivara, F. P. (2005).
Solberg, L. I., Maciosek, M. V., & Edwards, N. M. (2008).
Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems. (2008).
National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. (2006).
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Dauser, D., Burleson, J. A., Zarkin, G. A., & Bray, J. W. (2006).
Mundt, M. P. (2006).
Whitlock, E. P., Green, C. A., & Polen, M. R. (2004).
73
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
74
Visher, C. A. (1992).
75
Wish, E. D., Petronis, K. R., & Yacoubian, G. S. (2002).
Henry, D. A., & Clark, J. (1999).
76
Rosen, C. J., & Goldkamp, J. S. (1989).
Henry, D. A., & Clark, J. (1999).
77
Rosen, C. J., & Goldkamp, J. S. (1989).
Henry, D. A., & Clark, J. (1999).
78
Rosen, C. J., & Goldkamp, J. S. (1989).
79
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
80
Green, B. L., Furrer, C., Worcel, S., Burrus, S., & Finigan, M. W. (2007).
Hogue, A., Dauber, S., & Samuolis, J. (2006).
Kaufman, E., Yoshioka, M. R. M., & Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004).
81
Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Morrow, B. (2000).
82
Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (personal communication, November 10, 2009).
83
U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. (2010).
84
Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (personal communication, November 10, 2009).
85
Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008).
86
Horn, Martin F., Commissioner, New York City Department of Corrections (personal communication, January 26,
2009).
87
D'Angelo, L. (2002).
88
Hawken, A. (2009).
National Institute of Justice. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2007).
89
Hawken, A. (2009).
National Institute of Justice. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2007).
90
Hawken, A. (2009).
National Institute of Justice. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2007).
91
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2003).
92
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2003).
93
Huddleston, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008).
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010).
94
Eighth Judicial Circuit Family Court. (2010).
95
National Institute of Justice. (2006).
96
King, R. S., & Pasquarella, J. (2009).
97
American University, School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office. (2009).
Hawken, A. (2009).
National Institute of Justice. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2008).
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2007).
98
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2005).
72

-115-

99

Bowler, P. C. (2009, May).
Finigan, M. W., Carey, S. M., & Cox, A. (2007).
101
Huddleston, C. W., & Wosje, R. (2008).
102
Carey, S. M., Fuller, B. E., & Kissick, K. (2008).
103
Eibner, C., Morral, A. R., Pacula, R. L., & MacDonald, J. (2006).
104
Wallace, D. J. (2008).
105
Drug Policy Alliance. (2010).
106
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001).
Field Research Corporation. (2009).
107
Field Research Corporation. (2009).
108
Drug Policy Alliance. (2010).
109
Hser, Y.-I., Teruya, C., Brown, A. H., Huang, D., Evans, E., & Anglin, M. D. (2007).
110
Rinaldo, S. G., & Kelly-Thomas, I. (2005).
111
Richman, J. (2009).
112
Ehlers, S., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006).
113
Longshore, D., Urada, D., Evans, E., Hser, Y.-I., Prendergast, M. L., & Hawken, A. (2005).
114
Longshore, D., Hawken, A., Urada, D., & Anglin, M. D. (2006).
115
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. (2006).
Kansas Association of Counties. (2009). 2003 Legislative Summary. [On-line]. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.kansascounties.org/archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=58.
Kansas Legislature. (2004).
Kansas Legislature, House Committee of the Whole. (2004).
Kansas Department of Corrections. (2009).
116
Kansas Legislature. (2004).
Kansas Legislature, House Committee of the Whole. (2004).
117
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. (2009).
118
Perron, B. E., & Bright, C. L. (2008).
119
Seals, R. (2009).
120
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
121
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2009).
122
New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. (2010).
New Jersey Legislature. (2010a).
New Jersey Legislature. (2010b).
New Jersey Legislature. (2010c).
123
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001).
Daley, M., Love, C. T., Shepard, D. S., Petersen, C. B., White, K. L., & Hall, F. B. (2004).
Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., McCollister, K., French, M., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2004).
Mauser, E., & Kit, V. S. (1994).
124
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
125
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2009).
126
Compensation Board. (2004).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010u).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
127
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010u).
128
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., & Hall, E. (2003).
129
Rothfeld, M. (2009).
130
Belenko, S., Patapis, N., & French, M. T. (2005).
131
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008b).
132
Reentry Policy Council. (2008).
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008a).
133
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008a).
100

-116-

Chapter VIII
Notes
1

Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004).
Wexler, H. K., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999).
3
Olson, D. E., Rozhon, J., & Powers, M. (2009).
4
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2003).
5
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
2

-117-

Appendix A
Notes
1

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p).
2
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l).
3
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n).
4
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i).
5
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010d).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010e).
6
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010v).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010w).
7
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010f).
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010g).
8
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010j).
9
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x).
10
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010z).
11
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010u).
12
Perkins, C. A., Stephan, J. J., & Beck, A. J. (2005).
13
Compensation Board. (2004).
14
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., & Hall, E. (2003).
15
Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994).
16
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998).
17
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1993).
18
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005).

-118-

Appendix B
Notes
1

American Correctional Association. (1990).
American Correctional Association. (1990).
3
National Institute of Corrections. (1991).
4
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1993).
5
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
6
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a).
7
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006).
2

-119-

Bibliography
Abadinsky, H. (2009). Probation and parole: Theory and practice (10 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, 406 F. Supp. 649 (S.D. Tex. 1975).
Alter, M. J., Kruszon-Moran, D., Nainan, O. V., & McQuillan, G. M. (1999). The prevalence of hepatitis c virus
infection in the United States, 1988 through 1994. New England Journal of Medicine, 341(8), 556-563.
American Correctional Association. (1990). Standards for adult correctional institutions, third edition. Washington,
DC: St. Mary's Press.
American Judicature Society. (2009). It is time to end the war on drugs. [Online]. Retrieved December 14, 2009
from the World Wide Web: http://www.ajs.org/
American Medical Association. (2009). American Medical Association timeline: 1941 to 1960. [Online]. Retrieved
October 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ama-assn.org .
American University, School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office. (2009). BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse
Project. Summary of drug court activity by state and county. July 14, 2009. [Online]. Retrieved September
29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www1.spa.american.edu.
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE). (2008). Legal issues pertaining to smoking in correctional
facilities. [Online]. Retrieved October 2, 2009 AELE Monthly Law Journal: Jail and Prisoner Law Section
http://www.aele.org/
Anonymous. (2008). Inmate education programs. Corrections Compendium, 33(3), 9-28.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does
not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce
crime: A review of national research findings with implications for Washington State. Olympia, WA:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Auriacombe, M., Fatseas, M., Dubernet, J., Daulouede, J. P., & Tignol, J. (2004). French field experience with
buprenorphine. American Journal on Addictions, 13(Suppl. 1), S17-S28.
Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment (NCJ
Pub. No. 182503). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Dauser, D., Burleson, J. A., Zarkin, G. A., & Bray, J. W. (2006). Brief
interventions for at-risk drinking: Patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in managed care organizations.
Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41(6), 624-631.
Barry, E., Ginchild, R., & Lee, D. (1995). Legal issues for prisoners with children. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston
(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents. (pp. 147-166). New York: Lexington Books.
Beck, A. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2002). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2001 (Revised 5/10/02) (NCJ Pub. No.
191702). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

-120-

Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. M. (2004). Hepatitis testing and treatment in state prisons (NCJ Pub. No. 191173C).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006). Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery
arrests. Criminology, 44(1), 105-137.
Belenko, S. (2006). Assessing released inmates for substance-abuse-related service needs. Crime and Delinquency,
52(1), 94-113.
Belenko, S., Foltz, C., Lang, M. A., & Sung, H.-E. (2004). Recidivism among high-risk drug felons: A longitudinal
analysis following residential treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 105-132.
Belenko, S., Patapis, N., & French, M. T. (2005). Economic benefits of drug treatment: A critical review of the
evidence for policy makers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Treatment Research Institute.
Benda, B. B., & Toombs, N. J. (2002). Religiosity and drug use among inmates in boot camp: Testing a theoretical
model with reciprocal relationships. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 161-183.
Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (1995). Three strikes and you're out!: The political sentencing game. Federal
Probation, 59(1), 3-9.
Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding
treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., et al. (2007). Release from
prison--a high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157-165.
Blitz, C. L. (2006). Predictors of stable employment among female inmates in New Jersey: Implications for
successful reintegration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 1-22.
Blume, S. B., & Zilberman, M. L. (2009). Alcohol and women. In J. H. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. B. Millman, & J. G.
Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook. (4th ed., pp. 1049-1064). Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and "career criminals" (Vol.
1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A., IV. (2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress in school-age
children of prisoners. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(3), 323-333.
Bonczar, T. P. (2009). Characteristics of state parole supervising agencies, 2006 (Revised 3/16/09) (NCJ Pub. No.
222180). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Bonczar, T. P., & Glaze, L. E. (1999). Probation and parole in the United States, 1998 (NCJ Pub. No. 178234).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Bowler, P. C. (2009). A recovery plan for Michigan's criminal justice system. Michigan Bar Journal, 88(5), 32-36.
Braithwaite, R. L., & Arriola, K. R. J. (2008). Male prisoners and HIV prevention: A call for action ignored.
American Journal of Public Health, 98(Suppl. 9), S145-S149.
Burd, L., Selfridge, R. H., Klug, M. G., & Bakko, S. A. (2004). Fetal alcohol syndrome in the United States
corrections system. Addiction Biology, 9(2), 169-176.

-121-

Burdon, W. M., Messina, N. P., & Prendergast, M. L. (2004). The California treatment expansion initiative:
Aftercare participation, recidivism, and predictors of outcomes. Prison Journal, 84(1), 61-80.
Burrell, W. D. (2004). Trends in probation and parole in the States. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole
Association.
Butzin, C. A., Martin, S. S., & Inciardi, J. A. (2005). Treatment during transition from prison to community and
subsequent illicit drug use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28(4), 351-358.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2009). Corrections moving forward. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Public and Employee Communications.
Campbell, B. K., Wander, N., Stark, M. J., & Holbert, T. (1995). Treating cigarette smoking in drug-abusing clients.
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 12(2), 89-94.
Carey, S. M., Fuller, B. E., & Kissick, K. (2008). Michigan DUI courts outcome evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC
Research.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1993). Establishing substance abuse treatment programs in prisons: A
practitioner's handbook. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1997). Substance abuse treatment and domestic violence. Treatment
Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 25 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 97-3163). [Online]. Retrieved
November 4, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998). Continuity of offender treatment for substance use disorders from
institution to community. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 30 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
98-3245). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000a). Substance abuse treatment for persons with child abuse and
neglect issues. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 36 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 00-3357).
[Online]. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000b). Substance abuse treatment for persons with HIV/AIDS. Treatment
Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 37 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 00-3410). Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004a). Clinical guidelines for the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of
opioid addiction. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 40 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 04-3939).
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment..
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004b). Opioid treatment program accreditation impact study: Executive
summary: 1998-2002. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment..
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005a). Substance abuse treatment for adults in the criminal justice system.
Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series 44 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 05-4056). Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment..

-122-

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005b). Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring
disorders. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 42 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 05-3992). Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2010a). Extended-release injectable naltrexone. Treatment Improvement
Protocol (TIP) series No. 49. [Online]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Retrieved February 19, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2010b). Oral naltrexone. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No.
49. [Online]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2010
from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Prevention and control of infections with hepatitis viruses in
correctional settings. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(RR-1), 1-33.
Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice
system: Improving public health and safety. JAMA, 301(2), 183-190.
Chen, G. (2006). Social support, spiritual program, and addiction recovery. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(3), 306-323.
Clark, H. W., & Power, A. K. (2009). Women, co-occurring disorders, and violence study: A case for traumainformed care. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28(2), 145-146.
Cohen, F. (1993). Captives' legal right to mental health care. Law and Psychology Review, 17(Spring), 1-39.
Collins, T. J. (2008). DRC tobacco prohibition. [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.drc.state.oh.us.
Compensation Board. (2004). Jail cost report FY2003: Compensation Board report to the General Assembly.
Richmond, VA: Commonwealth of Virginia, Compensation Board.
Compton, T., & Meacham, M. (2005, March 22). Prison gangs: Descriptions and selected intervention. Forensic
Examiner, p. 8.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3288, 111th Congress, (2010)
Cornish, J. W., Metzger, D., Woody, G. E., Wilson, D., McLellan, A. T., Vandergfift, B., et al. (1997). Naltrexone
pharmacotherapy for opioid dependent federal probationers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(6),
529-534.
Correctional Association of New York. (2004). Mental health in the house of corrections. [Online]. Retrieved
October 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.correctionalassociation.org/.
Corrections Compendium. (2007). Correctional officers: Hiring requirements and wages. Lincoln, NE: CEGA
Services.
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008a). Justice reinvestment state brief: Vermont. New York:
Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008b). Recent and projected growth in the Vermont prison
population. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Council of State Governments. (2002). Criminal justice / mental health consensus project. Lexington, KY: Council
of State Governments.
-123-

Covington, J. (2001). Appendix E: Linking treatment to punishment: An evaluation of drug treatment in the criminal
justice system. In National Research Council (Ed.), Informing America's policy on illegal drugs: What we
don't know keeps hurting us. (pp. 349-381). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Crewe, B. (2005). Prisoner society in the era of hard drugs. Punishment and Society, 7(4), 457-481.
Cropsey, K. L., Villalobos, G. C., & St. Clair, C. L. (2005). Pharmacotherapy treatment in substance-dependent
correctional populations: A review. Substance Use and Misuse, 40(13), 1983-1999.
Culp, R. F. (2005). The rise and stall of prison privatization: An integration of policy analysis perspectives. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 16(4), 412-442.
Cunningham, J. A., Herie, M., Martin, G., & Turner, B. J. (2009). Training probation and parole officers to provide
substance abuse treatment: A field test. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 27(1), 167-177.
Dackis, C., & O'Brien, C. (2005). Neurobiology of addiction: Treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature
Neuroscience, 8(11), 1431-1436.
Daley, M., Love, C. T., Shepard, D. S., Petersen, C. B., White, K. L., & Hall, F. B. (2004). Cost-effectiveness of
Connecticut's in-prison substance abuse treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(3), 69-92.
Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family
Relations, 56(5), 440-453.
D'Angelo, L. (2002). Management note: Women and addiction: Challenges for drug court practitioners. Justice
System Journal, 23(3), 386-400.
Darnell, M. (2008, September 28). In prison to heal, learn to live better. Denver Post, p. D-01.
Deitch, D. A., Koutesnok, I., & Ruiz, A. (2008). In-custody therapeutic community substance abuse treatment: Does
it have any impact on custody personnel? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(1), 61-83.
DeLisi, M. (2006). Zeroing in on early arrest onset: Results from a population of extreme career criminals. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 17-26.
Des Jarlais, D. C. (2000). Editorials: Prospects for a public health perspective on psychoactive drug use. American
Journal of Public Health, 90(3), 335-337.
Devereux, P. G., Whitley, R., & Ragavan, A. (2002). Discharge planning for inmates with HIV/AIDS: Can it help
increase adherence to medical treatment and lower recidivism? Corrections Today, 64(6), 127-129.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and
Delinquency, 45(4), 438-452.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2009a). New York's Rockefeller drug laws: Explaining the reforms of 2009. [Online].
Retrieved February 18, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2009b). Rockefeller drug laws: Quick facts. [Online]. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2010). About Prop 36. [Online]. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.prop36.org.
Dunn, K. E., Sigmon, S. C., Reimann, E., Heil, S. H., & Higgins, S. T. (2009). Effects of smoking cessation on illicit
drug use among opioid maintenance patients: A pilot study. Journal of Drug Issues, 39(2), 313-327.

-124-

DuPont, R. L., Mieczkowski, T. M., & Newel, R. A. (2005). Drug testing in correctional settings: Guidelines for
effective use. Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation.
Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2003). The adolescent children of incarcerated parents: A developmental perspective. In
J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children,
families, and communities. (pp. 233-258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Ehlers, S., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). Proposition 36: Five years later. [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.justicepolicy.org.
Ehlers, S., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004). Still striking out: Ten years of California's Three Strikes.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Eibner, C., Morral, A. R., Pacula, R. L., & MacDonald, J. (2006). Is the drug court model exportable? The costeffectiveness of a driving-under-the-influence court. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(1), 75-85.
Eighth Judicial Circuit Family Court. (2010). Specialty courts. [Online]. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.circuit8.org.
Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems. (2008). Workplace screening & brief intervention: What employers can
and should do about excessive alcohol use. Washington, DC: George Washington University Medical
Center, Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems.
Erickson, S. K., Rosenheck, R. A., Trestman, R. L., Ford, J. D., & Desai, R. A. (2008). Risk of incarceration
between cohorts of veterans with and without mental illness discharged from inpatient units. Psychiatric
Services, 59(2), 178-183.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976).
Fast, D. K., & Conry, J. (2004). The challenge of fetal alcohol syndrome in the criminal legal system. Addiction
Biology, 9(2), 161-166.
Fast, D. K., Conry, J., & Loock, C. A. (1999). Identifying fetal alcohol syndrome among youth in the criminal
justice system. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 20(5), 370-372.
Fernander, A., Wilson, J. T., Staton, M., & Leukefeld, C. (2005). Exploring the type-of-crime hypothesis,
religiosity, and spirituality in an adult male prison population. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 49(6), 682-695.
Field Research Corporation. (2009). The Field Poll's record in measuring statewide ballot propositions in
California (1994 - present). [Online]. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.field.com.
Finigan, M. W., Carey, S. M., & Cox, A. (2007). The impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation:
Recidivism and costs. Portland: NPC Research.
Flanagan, N. A., & Lo Bue-Estes, C. (2005). Health care needs of inmates leaving U.S. prisons and
recommendations for improving transitional health care. International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice, 29(1), 19-32.
Fleming, M., Mundt, M. P., French, M. T., Manwell, L. B., Stauffacher, E. A., & Barry, K. L. (2002). Brief
physician advice for problem drinkers: Long-term efficacy and benefit-cost analysis. Alcoholism: Clinical
and Experimental Research, 26(1), 36-43.
Fraser, C. (2008). Victims and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD): A review of the issues. Victims of Crime
Research Digest, 1, 24-28.
-125-

Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., Crum, M., Perkins, T., & Richie, B. (2005). Coming home from jail: The social and
health consequences of community reentry for women, male adolescents, and their families and
communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1725-1736.
Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved
adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267-277.
Garner, B. R., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Burnout among corrections-based drug treatment staff: Impact
of individual and organizational factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 51(5), 510-522.
Gentilello, L. M., Ebel, B. E., Wickizer, T. M., Salkever, D. S., & Rivara, F. P. (2005). Alcohol interventions for
trauma patients treated in emergency departments and hospitals: A cost benefit analysis. Annals of Surgery,
241(4), 541-550.
Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating recovery
services: The California drug and alcohol treatment assessment (CALDATA): General report (Pub. No.
ADP 94-629). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. (2009). Probation and parole in the United States, 2006 (Revised 9/8/09) (NCJ Pub. No.
220218). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2009). Parents in prison and their minor children (Revised 1/8/09) (NCJ Pub.
No. 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Goodrum, S., Staton, M., Leukefeld, C., Webster, J. M., & Purvis, R. T. (2003). Perceptions of a prison-based
substance abuse treatment program among some staff and participants. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
37(3), 27-46.
Gordon, M. S., Kinlock, T. W., Schwartz, R. P., & O'Grady, K. E. (2008). A randomized clinical trial of methadone
maintenance for prisoners: Findings at 6 months post-release. Addiction, 103(8), 1333-1342.
Gramlich, J. (2009). Tracking the recession: Prison economics. [Online]. Retrieved September 25, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.stateline.org.
Green, B. L., Furrer, C., Worcel, S., Burrus, S., & Finigan, M. W. (2007). How effective are family treatment drug
courts? Outcomes from a four-site national study. Child Maltreatment, 12(1), 43-59.
Greene, J., Pranis, K., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). Disparity by design: How drug-free zone laws impact racial
disparity - and fail to protect youth. [Online]. Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Greenfield, S. F., & Grella, C. E. (2009). What is "women-focused" treatment for substance use disorders?
Psychiatric Services, 60(7), 880-882.
Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d. 674 (1996).
Grimes, J. C. (2009). US prison system falls short in treating drug addiction, study finds. [Online]. Medical News
Today. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com.
Gulliver, S. B., Kamholz, B. W., & Helstrom, A. W. (2006). Smoking cessation and alcohol abstinence: What do the
data tell us? Alcohol Research and Health, 29(3), 208-212.

-126-

Hagan, J., & Coleman, J. P. (2001). Returning captives of the American war on drugs: Issues of community and
family reentry. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 352-367.
Hammett, T. M., Gaiter, J. L., & Crawford, C. (1998). Reaching seriously at-risk populations: Health interventions
in criminal justice settings. Health Education and Behavior, 25(1), 99-120.
Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations (NCJ Pub. No. 195670). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions.
Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 207-232.
Hawken, A. (2009). HOPE: Theoretical underpinnings and evaluation findings: Testimonial prepared for the
Oregon State Legislature. [Online]. Crime Victims United of Oregon. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.crimevictimsunited.org.
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2007). HOPE for reform: What a novel probation program in Hawaii might teach
other states. [Online]. Retrieved May 9, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hopeprobation.org.
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2008). Research brief: Evaluation of HOPE probation: A summary. [Online].
Retrieved October 13, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org.
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25 (1993).
Hennessey, K. A., Kim, A. A., Griffin, V., Collins, N. T., Weinbaum, C. M., & Sabin, K. (2008). Prevalence of
infection with hepatitis b and c viruses and co-infection with HIV in three jails: A case for viral hepatitis
prevention in jails in the United States. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, 86(1), 93-105.
Henry, D. A., & Clark, J. (1999). Pretrial drug testing: An overview of issues and practices (NCJ Pub. No. 176341).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Hicks, G. (2009). Therapeutic court for veterans. [Online]. Retrieved October 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www1.va.gov.
Hill, C. (2004). Inmate mental health care. Corrections Compendium, 29(5), 12-31.
Hiller, M. L. (1996). Correlates of recidivism and relapse for parolees who received in-prison substance abuse
treatment in Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(4), 212.
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Prison-based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare
and recidivism. Addiction, 94(6), 833-842.
Hodgins, D. C., el-Guebaly, N., & Addington, J. (1997). Treatment of substance abusers: Single or mixed gender
programs? Addiction, 92(7), 805-812.
Hogue, A., Dauber, S., & Samuolis, J. (2006). Treatment techniques and outcomes in multidimensional family
therapy for adolescent behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 535-543.
Hser, Y.-I., Teruya, C., Brown, A. H., Huang, D., Evans, E., & Anglin, M. D. (2007). Impact of California's
Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement. American Journal of
Public Health, 97(1), 104-109.
Huddleston, C. W., & Wosje, R. (2008). DWI courts and DWI/drug courts: Reducing recidivism, saving lives.
[Online]. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.yourhonor.com.

-127-

Huddleston, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). Painting the current picture: A national report card on
drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States (2nd ed.) (Vol. 1). Alexandria,
VA: National Drug Court Institute.
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the
criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 283-296.
Hughey, R., & Klemke, L. W. (1996). Evaluation of a jail-based substance abuse treatment program. Federal
Probation, 60(4), 40-44.
Human Rights Watch. (2008). Targeting Blacks: Drug law enforcement and race in the United States. New York:
Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch. (2009). Barred from treatment: Punishment of drug users in New York state prisons.
[Online]. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hrw.org.
Hurt, R. D., Eberman, K. M., Croghan, I. T., Offord, K. P., Davis, L. J., Jr., Morse, R. M., et al. (1994). Nicotine
dependence treatment during inpatient treatment for other addictions: A prospective intervention trial.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18(4), 867-872.
Illinois Government News Network. (2004a). Governor Blagojevich launches new "Statewide Community Safety
and Reentry Working Group". [Online]. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.illinois.gov.
Illinois Government News Network. (2004b). Governor's proposal for Department of Corrections budget increases
efficiency through restructuring, expands supervision of parolees and re-entry management. [Online].
Retrieved October 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.illinois.gov.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of
drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 88-107.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prisonbased treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 261-278.
Institute of Medicine. (1996). Fetal alcohol syndrome: Diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention, and treatment.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
James, D. J. (2004). Profile of jail inmates, 2002 (NCJ Pub. No. 201932). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates (NCJ Pub. No. 213600).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Johnson, B. R. (2004). Religious programs and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs: A
long-term follow-up study. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 329-354.
Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated
parents. (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books.
Junginger, J., Claypoole, K., Laygo, R., & Crisanti, A. (2006). Effects of serious mental illness and substance abuse
on criminal offenses. Psychiatric Services, 57(6), 879-882.
Justice Policy Institute. (2009). Pruning prisons: How cutting corrections can save money and protect public safety.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

-128-

Kalinich, D. B., & Stojkovic, S. (1985). Contraband: The basis for legitimate power in a prison social system.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(4), 435-451.
Kansas Association of Counties. (2009). 2003 legislative summary. [Online]. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.kansascounties.org.
Kansas Department of Corrections. (2009). What is 2003-SB123? [Online]. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.dc.state.ks.us.
Kansas Legislature, House Committee of the Whole. (2004). Supplemental note on Senate Bill No. 123. [Online].
Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kslegislature.org.
Kansas Legislature. (2004). Senate Bill No. 123. [Online]. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.kslegislature.org.
Kaplan, L. (2003). Substance abuse treatment workforce environmental scan. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment.
Kassebaum, P. A. (1999). Substance abuse treatment for women offenders: Guide to promising practices (DHHS
Pub. No. (SMA) 99-3303). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Kauffman, R. M., Ferketich, A. K., & Wewers, M. E. (2008). Tobacco policy in American prisons, 2007. Tobacco
Control, 17(5), 357-360.
Kaufman, E., Yoshioka, M. R. M., & Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2004). Substance abuse treatment
and family therapy. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) series No. 39 (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 054006). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002). Crack-ing down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions among offenders'
race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 1-35.
Kelley, L., Mueller, D., & Hemmens, C. (2004). To punish or rehabilitate revisited: An analysis of the purpose/goals
of state correctional statutes, 1991-2002. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(4), 333-351.
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. (2009). SB4, 09RS. [Online]. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.lrc.ky.gov.
Kerley, K. R., Matthews, T. L., & Schulz, J. T. (2005). Participation in Operation Starting Line, experience of
negative emotions, and incidence of negative behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 49(4), 410-426.
Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (1996).
Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Saunders, B., Resnick, H. S., Best, C. L., & Schnurr, P. P. (2000). Risk factors for
adolescent substance abuse and dependence: Data from a national sample. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68(1), 19-30.
King, R. S., & Pasquarella, J. (2009). Drug courts: A review of the evidence . Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.
Kinney, N. T. (2006). The implications for inmate rights of the voluntary provision of religious services. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 17(2), 188-201.

-129-

Kranzler, H. R., & Van Kirk, J. (2001). Efficacy of naltrexone and acamprosate for alcoholism treatment: A metaanalysis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25(9), 1335-1341.
Krebs, C. P. (2002). High-risk HIV transmission behavior in prison and the prison subculture. Prison Journal, 82(1),
19-49.
Krisberg, B., & Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudes of US voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies.
[Online]. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.nccd-crc.org.
Kupers, T. A. (1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis behind bars and what we must do about it. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lake Research Partners. (2009). New poll shows broad bi-partisan support for improving access to alcohol and
drug addiction treatment. [Online]. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.soros.org.
Langendam, M. W., van Brussel, G. H., Coutinho, R. A., & van Ameijden, E. J. (2001). The impact of harmreduction-based methadone treatment on mortality among heroin users. American Journal of Public Health,
91(5), 774-780.
Lankenau, S. E. (2001). Smoke 'em if you got' em: Cigarette black markets in U.S. prisons and jails. Prison Journal,
81(2), 142-161.
Lapido, D. (2009). The rise of America's prison-industrial complex. New Left Review, 7(Jan – Feb), 109-123.
Lapidus, L., Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D., Allard, P., & Levingston, K. (2005). Caught in the net: The impact of
drug policies on women and families. [Online]. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.aclu.org.
Laufer, F. N., Arriola, K. R. J., Dawson-Rose, C. S., Kumaravelu, K., & Rapposelli, K. K. (2002). From jail to
community: Innovative strategies to enhance continuity of HIV/AIDS care. Prison Journal, 82(1), 84-100.
Lee, R. D., & Rasinski, K. A. (2006). Five grams of coke: Racism, moralism and white public opinion on sanctions
for first time possession. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(3), 183-191.
Lewis, S. G. (2002). Kicking the tobacco habit: Correctional health pros share 'smoke-free' stories. [Online].
Retrieved October 19, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncchc.org.
Library of Congress. (2010). Status of appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2010. [Online]. Retrieved February
4, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://thomas.loc.gov.
Lindgren, S. A. (1997). Justice expenditures and employment extracts, 1992: Data from the annual general finance
and employment surveys (NCJ Pub. No. 148821). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., McCollister, K., French, M., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2004). Economic evaluation of
drug court: Methodology, results, and policy implications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27(4), 381396.
Longshore, D., Hawken, A., Urada, D., & Anglin, M. D. (2006). Evaluation of the substance abuse and crime
prevention act: SACPA cost-analysis report (first and second years). [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008
from the World Wide Web: http://www.uclaisap.org.

-130-

Longshore, D., Urada, D., Evans, E., Hser, Y.-I., Prendergast, M. L., & Hawken, A. (2005). Evaluation of the abuse
and crime prevention act: 2004 report. [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.uclaisap.org.
Lurigio, A. J. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness: Studies of the general and criminal justice
populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(4), 495-528.
Lynch, J. P. (1995). Crime in international perspective. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime. (pp. 11). San
Francisco: ICS Press.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Magura, S., Lee, J. D., Hershberger, J., Joseph, H., Marsch, L., Shropshire, C., et al. (2009). Buprenorphine and
methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: A randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 99(1-3), 222-230.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes
in drug court. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(2), 183-198.
Marsch, L. A. (1998). The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV risk
behavior and criminality: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 93(4), 515-532.
Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community
treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. Prison
Journal, 73(9), 294-320.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35(Spring), 2254.
Maruschak, L. M. (1999). HIV in prisons, 1997 (Revised 12/9/99) (NCJ Pub. No. 178284). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Maruschak, L. M. (2004). HIV in prisons and jails, 2002 (NCJ Pub. No. 205333). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Maruschak, L. M. (2006). HIV in prisons, 2004 (Revised 3/1/07) (NCJ Pub. No. 213897). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Maruschak, L. M. (2007). HIV in prisons, 2005 (Revised 2/26/08) (NCJ Pub. No. 218915). [Online]. Retrieved
January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Maruschak, L. M. (2008). HIV in prisons, 2006. [Online]. Retrieved October 13, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. (2004). Maryland State Commission on Criminal
Sentencing Policy: Annual report. College Park, MD: Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing
Policy.
Maston, C., & Klaus, P. (2009). National Crime Victimization Survey property crime trends, 1973-2008.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mauer, M. (2003). Comparative international rates of incarceration: An examination of causes and trends. [Online].
Retrieved October 29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sentencingproject.org.
-131-

Mauer, M. (2007). The hidden problem of time served in prison. Social Research, 74(2), 701-706.
Mauser, E., & Kit, V. S. (1994). The economic impact of diverting substance-abusing offenders into treatment.
Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 568-588.
May, P. A., & Gossage, J. P. (2001). Estimating the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome. A summary. Alcohol
Research and Health, 25(3), 159-167.
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E., & Sacks, S. (2004). Long-term cost effectiveness of
addiction treatment for criminal offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 659-679.
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M. L., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., & Hall, E. (2003). Is in-prison
treatment enough? A cost-effectiveness analysis of prison-based treatment and aftercare services for
substance-abusing offenders. Law and Policy, 25(1), 63-82.
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992).
McKendrick, K., Sullivan, C., Banks, S., & Sacks, S. (2006). Modified therapeutic community treatment for
offenders with MICA disorders: Antisocial personality disorder and treatment outcomes. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 44(2/3), 133-159.
McLearen, A. M., & Ryba, N. L. (2003). Identifying severely mentally ill inmates: Can small jails comply with
detection standards? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(1), 25-40.
McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O'Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness:
Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689-1695.
McNiel, D. E., Binder, R. L., & Robinson, J. C. (2005). Incarceration associated with homelessness, mental
disorder, and co-occurring substance abuse. Psychiatric Services, 56(7), 840-846.
McVay, D., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004). Treatment or incarceration? National and state findings on the
efficacy and cost savings of drug treatment versus imprisonment. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Mears, D. P., Winterfield, L., Hunsaker, J., Moore, G. E., & White, R. (2003). Drug treatment in the criminal justice
system: The current state of knowledge. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Merrow, K., McGlashan, L., & Lamphere, K. (2008). Women behind bars: The needs and challenges of New
Hampshire's increasing population of incarcerated women. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Women's
Policy Institute.
Michigan Department of Corrections. (2009). MDOC to be tobacco-free by February 2009. [Online]. Retrieved
November 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.michigan.gov.
Millay, T. A., Satyanarayana, V. A., O'Leary, C. C., Crecelius, R., & Cottler, L. B. (2009). Risky business: Focusgroup analysis of sexual behaviors, drug use and victimization among incarcerated women in St. Louis.
Journal of Urban Health, 86(5), 810-817.
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2007). Updated report on drug offender sentencing issues. Saint
Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
Moore, M. T. (2009). Jobs lost as states close prisons. [Online]. USA Today. Retrieved September 25, 2009 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.usatoday.com.
Morris, S. M., Steadman, H. J., & Veysey, B. M. (1997). Mental health services in United States jails: A survey of
innovative practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(1), 3-19.

-132-

Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ Pub. No. 182335). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mumola, C. J. (2007). Medical causes of death in state prisons, 2001-2004 (NCJ Pub. No. 216340). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mumola, C. J., & Noonan, M. E. (2009). Deaths in custody statistical tables. [Online]. Retrieved October 9, 2009
from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Mundt, M. P. (2006). Analyzing the costs and benefits of brief interventions. Alcohol Research and Health, 29(1),
34-36.
Munoz-Plaza, C. E., Strauss, S. M., Astone, J. M., Des Jarlais, D. C., & Hagan, H. (2005). Hepatitis C service
delivery in prisons: Peer education from the "Guys in Blue". Journal of Correctional Health Care, 11(4),
347-368.
Nagin, D., Piquero, A., Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration
of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 301326.
National Archives and Records Administration. (2001). 21 CFR § 291, 42 CFR § 8: Opioid drugs in maintenance
and detoxification treatment of opiate addiction. Federal Register, 66(11), 4076-4102.
National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. (2006). Current research on screening and brief
intervention and implications for state Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) systems. State Issue Brief.
Washington, DC: National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2004). OTP accreditation. [Online]. Retrieved October 22,
2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncchc.org/accred/OTP.html.
National Institute of Corrections. (1991). Intervening with substance-abusing offenders: A framework for action.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade (NCJ Pub. No. 211081). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
National Institute of Justice. (2008). HOPE in Hawaii: Swift and sure changes in probation (NCJ Pub. No. 222758).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2005). A pocket guide for alcohol screening and brief
intervention. [Online]. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide [Revised
April 2009] (NIH Pub. No. 09-4180). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2002). Principles of HIV prevention in drug-using populations: A researchbased guide (NIH Pub. No. 02-4733). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A
research-based guide (NIH Pub. No. 06-5316). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2007). Understanding drug abuse and addiction. Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
-133-

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2008). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction. [Online].
Retrieved January 31, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.drugabuse.gov.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2009). Treatment approaches for drug addiction. [Online]. Retrieved November
11, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nida.nih.gov.
Nevada Department of Corrections. (2008). Administrative regulation 115: Departmental tobacco product prohibition.
[Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.doc.nv.gov.
New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. (2010). New Jersey legislature passes sweeping legislation to stop the
revolving door of recidivism, strengthen families and cut costs to taxpayers. [Online]. Retrieved January
19, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.secondchancenj.org.
New Jersey Legislature. (2010a). Bills 2008 - 2009: A4197: Establishes "Women and families strengthening act."
Bills and joint resolutions signed by the Governor. [Online]. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us.
New Jersey Legislature. (2010b). Bills 2008 - 2009: A4201: provides for programs and services for inmates and
formerly incarcerated persons; and institutes certain administrative procedures. Bills and joint resolutions
signed by the Governor. [Online]. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us.
New Jersey Legislature. (2010c). Bills 2008 - 2009: A4202: Concerns parole eligibility and supervision, prison
visitation, and training and education standards for incarcerated persons. Bills and joint resolutions signed
by the Governor. [Online]. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us.
Nisperos, N. (2009). State cuts prison rehab, hundreds of prison jobs. [Online]. Retrieved September 25, 2009 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.dailybulletin.com.
Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Health Solutions, Public Health Division. (2006). Opioid treatment
program (OTP) accreditation evaluation: Final report. Rockville, MD: Northrop Grumman Information
Technology, Health Solutions, Public Health Division.
Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009). Methadone and buprenorphine
prescribing and referral practices in US prison systems: Results from a nationwide survey. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 105(1-2), 83-88.
O'Brien, P. (2006). Maximizing success for drug-affected women after release from prison: Examining access to and
use of social services during reentry. Women and Criminal Justice, 17(2/3), 95-113.
O'Connell, D. J., Enev, T. N., Martin, S. S., & Inciardi, J. A. (2007). Working toward recovery: The interplay of past
treatment and economic status in long-term outcomes for drug-involved offenders. Substance Use and
Misuse, 42(7), 1089-1107.
O'Connor, T. P., & Perreyclear, M. (2002). Prison religion in action and its influence on offender rehabilitation.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3-4), 11-33.
Office of Applied Studies. (2007). National survey of substance abuse treatment services (N-SSATS): 2006. Data on
substance abuse treatment facilities (DASIS Series S-39, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 07-4296). Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2000). Methadone (NCJ Pub. No. 175678). Washington, DC: Executive
Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy.

-134-

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010). Drug courts. [Online]. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.
Olson, D. E., Juergens, R., & Karr, S. P. (2004). Impetus and implementation of the Sheridan Correctional Center
therapeutic community. Program Evaluation Summary, 3(1), 1-12.
Olson, D. E., Rapp, J., Powers, M., & Karr, S. P. (2006). Sheridan Correctional Center therapeutic community: Year
2. Program Evaluation Summary, 4(2), 1-4.
Olson, D. E., Rozhon, J., & Powers, M. (2009). Enhancing prisoner reentry through access to prison-based and postincarceration aftercare treatment: Experiences from the Illinois Sheridan Correctional Center therapeutic
community. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(3), 299-321.
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 1105, 111th Congress, (2009)
Oser, C. B., Knudsen, H. K., Staton-Tindall, M., Taxman, F., & Leukefeld, C. (2009). Organizational-level
correlates of the provision of detoxification services and medication-based treatments for substance abuse
in correctional institutions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103S, S73-S81.
Osher, F., Steadman, H. J., & Barr, H. (2002). A best practice approach to community re-entry from jails for inmates
with co-occurring disorders: The APIC model. [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide
Web: http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov.
Osler, M. (2007). More than numbers: A proposal for rational drug sentences. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(5),
326-328.
Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pallone, N. J., & Hennessy, J. (2003). To punish or to treat: Substance abuse within the context of oscillating
attitudes toward correctional rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(3/4), 1-25.
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977).
Parke, R. D. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2001). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. Urban Institute,
Washington, DC
Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2005). A review of gender differences among substance abusers. Crime and Delinquency,
51(3), 343-372.
Perkins, C. A., Stephan, J. J., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Jails and jail inmates 1993 - 1994: Census of jails and survey of
jails (NCJ Pub. No. 151651). [Online]. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.druglibrary.org.
Perron, B. E., & Bright, C. L. (2008). The influence of legal coercion on dropout from substance abuse treatment:
Results from a national survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 92(1-3), 123-131.
Perry, S. W. (2008). Justice expenditure and employment statistical extracts, 2006 (NCJ Pub. No. 224394).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Peters, R. H., & Matthews, C. O. (2003). Substance abuse treatment programs in prisons and jails. In T. J. Fagan &
R. K. Ax (Eds.), Correctional mental health handbook. (pp. 73-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, R. H., & Steinberg, M. L. (2000). Substance abuse treatment services in US prisons. In D. Shewan & J. B.
Davies (Eds.), Drug use and prisons: An international perspective. (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: Harwood
Academic Publishers.
-135-

Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. Crime and Justice, 26(Prisons), 479-529.
Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable
Trusts.
Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: Pew
Charitable Trusts.
Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, & National Judicial College. (2008). Alcohol and other drug
problems: A public health and public safety priority: A resource guide for the justice system on evidencebased approaches. Providence, RI: Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy.
Poehlmann, J. (2005). Children's family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1275-1285.
Porter, J. (2005). Clearing the air on tobacco use in corrections. [Online]. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.ncchc.org.
Prendergast, M. L., Campos, M., Farabee, D., Evans, W. K., & Martinez, J. (2004). Reducing substance use in
prison: The California Department of Corrections Drug Reduction Strategy Project. Prison Journal, 84(2),
265-280.
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. (2006). The NCSC sentencing attitudes survey: A report on the
findings. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Prison Fellowship. (2005). About prison fellowship. Prison fellowship by the numbers. [Online]. Retrieved July 20,
2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pfm.org.
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Kang, W. (2008). Easy access to FBI arrest statistics 1994 - 2006. [Online].
Retrieved October 29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.
Ramstad, J. (2009, October 8). Access to health care: Millions still can't get help for addictions [Editorial]. Star
Tribune, p. A12.
Rand, M. (2009). National crime victimization survey: Violent crime trends, 1973-2008. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Reentry Policy Council. (2008). Vermont and Rhode Island enact initiatives to increase public safety and reduce
corrections spending. [Online]. Retrieved November 3, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://reentrypolicy.org.
Reid, M. S., Fallon, B., Sonne, S., Flammino, F., Nunes, E. V., Jiang, H., et al. (2008). Smoking cessation treatment
in community-based substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
35(1), 68-77.
Reindollar, R. W. (1999). Hepatitis c and the correctional population. American Journal of Medicine, 107(6B),
100s-103s.
Richman, J. (2009). California cuts of Prop. 36 drug treatment funding called 'a harm that keeps on hurting'.
[Online]. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mercurynews.com.
Rinaldo, S. G., & Kelly-Thomas, I. (2005). Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation
in other states and jurisdictions. Berkeley, CA: The Avisa Group.
Robinson, J. (2005). Who's really in prison for marijuana? Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
-136-

Rosen, C. J., & Goldkamp, J. S. (1989). The constitutionality of drug testing at the bail stage. Journal of Criminal
Law & Criminology, 80(1), 114-176.
Rothfeld, M. (October 17, 2009). As rehab programs are cut, prisons do less to keep inmates from returning.
[Online]. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.latimes.com.
Rubenstein, T. M. (2009). What are we waiting for? [Online]. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.audaciousideas.org.
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980).
Sabol, W. J., & Couture, H. (2008). Prison inmates at midyear 2007 (NCJ Pub. No. 221944). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Sabol, W. J., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Bulletin: Prisoners in 2006 (NCJ Pub. No. 219416).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006 (NCJ Pub. No.
217675). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Sacks, S., & Pearson, F. S. (2003). Co-occurring substance use and mental disorders in offenders: Approaches,
findings and recommendations. Federal Probation, 67(2), 32-39.
Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2003). Costs and benefits? The impact of drug imprisonment in New Jersey.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Schiraldi, V., Colburn, J., & Lotke, E. (2004). Three strikes and you're out: An examination of the impact of 3-strike
laws: 10 years after their enactment. [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://justicepolicy.org.
Schlosser, E. (1998, December). The prison-industrial complex. Atlantic Monthly, 51-77.
Schwartzman, L. H. (1994). Constitutional law: Eighth Amendment: Involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke in
prison supports a valid cruel and unusual punishment claim if the risk to one's health is unreasonable and
prison officials are indifferent to that risk: Helling v. McKinney, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993). Seton Hall Law
Review, 25(1), 314-352.
Scott, J. (2009). Paterson signs Rockefeller drug law reforms. [Online]. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.nbcnewyork.com.
Seals, R. (2009). Probation office stretched thin. [Online]. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.news-record.com.
Second Chance Act of 2007, H.R. 1593, 110th Congress, (2008)
Shivy, V. A., Wu, J. J., Moon, A. E., Mann, S. C., Holland, J. G., & Eacho, C. (2007). Ex-offenders reentering the
workforce. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 466-473.
Shoptaw, S., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Yang, X., Frosch, D., Nahom, D., Jarvik, M. E., et al. (2002). Smoking cessation
in methadone maintenance. Addiction, 97(10), 1317-1328.
Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (2007). Offender needs and functioning assessments from a national cooperative
research program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(9), 1105-1112.

-137-

Sims, B., & Johnson, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide study. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 270-293.
Singleton, N., Pendry, E., Simpson, T., Goddard, E., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., et al. (2005). The impact of mandatory
drug testing in prisons. London, England: Home Office.
Smith-Rohrberg, D., Bruce, R. D., & Altice, F. L. (2004). Research note: Review of corrections-based therapy for
opiate-dependent patients: Implications for buprenorphine treatment among correctional populations.
Journal of Drug Issues, 34(2), 451-480.
Solberg, L. I., Maciosek, M. V., & Edwards, N. M. (2008). Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse:
Ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(2), 143152.
South Carolina Department of Corrections. (2009). Rules for visitors. [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.doc.sc.gov.
Springer, D. W., McNeece, C. A., & Arnold, E. M. (2003). Substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: An
evidence-based guide for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. (2006). Kansas Senate Bill 123: A process and implementation evaluation. [Online].
Retrieved October 27, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.accesskansas.org.
Stephan, J. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2003). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 2000 (NCJ Pub. No.
198272). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Stoolmiller, M., & Blechman, E. A. (2005). Substance use is a robust predictor of adolescent recidivism. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 32(3), 302-328.
Streissguth, A., & Kanter, J. (Eds.). (1997). The challenge of fetal alcohol syndrome: Overcoming secondary
disabilities. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000). Substance abuse treatment in adult and
juvenile correctional facilities: Findings from the Uniform Facility Data Set 1997 Survey of Correctional
Facilities (DHHS Pub. No. SMA 00-3380). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). Substance abuse services and staffing in adult
correctional facilities. [Online]. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006a). Facilities offering special programs or
groups for clients with co-occurring disorders: 2004. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006b). Results from the 2005 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health: National findings (NSDUH Series H-30, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 06-4194).
Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). About buprenophrine therapy. [Online].
Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/.
Sullivan, L. E., & Fiellin, D. A. (2005). Buprenorphine: Its role in preventing HIV transmission and improving the
care of HIV-infected patients with opioid dependence. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 41(6), 891-896.

-138-

Sung, H.-E., & Belenko, S. (2005). Failure after success: Correlates of recidivism among individuals who
successfully completed coerced drug treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42(1), 75-97.
Swartz, J. A., & Lurigio, A. J. (2007). Serious mental illness and arrest: The generalized mediating effect of
substance use. Crime and Delinquency, 53(4), 581-604.
Sykes, G. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1960). The inmate social system. In R. A. Cloward (Ed.), Theoretical studies in
social organization of the prison. (pp. 5-19). New York: Social Science Research Council.
Taxman, F. S. (In press). Parole: Moving forward through a new model of behavioral management. In L. Gideon &
H.-E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E. S., Delano, J., Mitchell, S., Byrne, J. M., Gelb, A., et al. (2004). Tools of the trade: A
guide to incorporating science into practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections; U.S.
Department of Justice; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders.
Prison Journal, 79(2), 182-204.
Taxman, F., Prerdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the
state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239-254.
Tewksbury, R., & Taylor, J. M. (1996). The consequences of eliminating Pell Grants eligibility for students in postsecondary correctional education programs. Federal Probation, 60(3), 60-63.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1993). The cost of
substance abuse to America's health care system: Report 1: Medicaid hospital costs. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (1998). Behind bars:
Substance abuse and America's prison population. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2001). So help me god:
Substance abuse, religion and spirituality. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2003). Crossing the
bridge: An evaluation of the drug treatment alternative-to-prison (DTAP) program. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2008). Criminal neglect:
Substance abuse, juvenile justice and the children left behind. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2009). Shoveling up II:
The impact of substance abuse on federal, state and local budgets. New York: CASA.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010a). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Prison inmates at midyear 2007 (NCJ Pub. No. 221944).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010b). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Probation and parole in the United States, 1998 (NCJ Pub. No.
178234). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.

-139-

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010c). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Probation and parole in the United States, 2006 (Revised 7/2/08)
(NCJ Pub. No. 220218). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010d). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics program data set website: FY 1998 persons arrested and booked. [Online].
Retrieved October 27, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://fjsrc.urban.org.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010e). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics program data set website: FY 2004 persons arrested and booked. [Online].
Retrieved October 27, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://fjsrc.urban.org.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010f). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Felony sentences in state courts, 1998 (NCJ Pub. No. 190103).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010g). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Felony sentences in state courts, 2004 (NCJ Pub. No. 215646).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010h). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Prisoners in 1996 (Revised 7/21/97) (NCJ Pub. No. 164619).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010i). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Prisoners in 2006 (NCJ Pub. No. 219416). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010j). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: State court sentencing of convicted felons, 2004 - Statistical tables
(NCJ Pub. No. 217995). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010k). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in federal correctional facilities, 1991.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010l). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in federal correctional facilities, 2004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010m). CASA analysis
of the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in local jails, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010n). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in local jails, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010o). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in state correctional facilities, 1991. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010p). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics report: Survey of inmates in state correctional facilities, 2004. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
-140-

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010q). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics website: Compendium of federal justice statistics, 1998 (NCJ Pub. No.
180258). [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010r). CASA analysis of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics website: Compendium of federal justice statistics, 2004 (NCJ Pub. No.
213476). [Online]. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010s). CASA analysis of
the Census Bureau data set website: Historical national population estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999.
[Online]. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010t). CASA analysis of
the Census Bureau data set website: Table 1: Annual estimates of the resident population for the United
States, regions, states, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NSST-EST2008-01). [Online].
Retrieved October 29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010u). CASA analysis of
the Corrections Yearbook: Adult corrections 2002. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010v). CASA analysis of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation report: Crime in the United States 1998. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010w). CASA analysis
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation report: Crime in the United States 2004. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010x). CASA analysis of
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 2006 (Data file). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010y). CASA analysis of
the Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2003: Table 1.103: Federal and state correctional facilities by
type of facility and facility function, United States, June 30, 2000. [Online]. Retrieved February 11, 2010
from the World Wide Web: http://www.albany.edu.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2010z). CASA analysis of
the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2006 (ICPSR 21540) (Data file). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Thomas, J., & Zaitzow, B. H. (2006). Conning or conversion? The role of religion in prison coping. Prison Journal,
86(2), 242-259.
Thompkins, D. (2009, October). The tobacco ban: A crisis in social control. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect -- Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Torres, S., & Latta, R. M. (2000). Training the substance abuse specialist. Federal Probation, 64(2), 52-5750.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
-141-

Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and
reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Tumulty, B. (2009). Buffalo veterans court seen as a model. [Online]. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from the World
Wide Web: http://origin.wgrz.com.
Turley, A., Thornton, T., Johnson, C., & Azzolino, S. (2004). Jail drug and alcohol treatment program reduces
recidivism in nonviolent offenders: A longitudinal study of Monroe County, New York's, jail treatment
drug and alcohol program. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
48(6), 721-728.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Table 17: Median usual weekly earnings of employed full-time wage and
salary workers 25 years and over by educational attainment and sex, 2004 annual averages. [Online].
Retrieved November 11, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bls.gov.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid. (2008). 2008-2009 federal student aid handbook.
[Online]. Retrieved October 29, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ifap.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). The Clinton administration's law enforcement strategy: Breaking the cycle of
drugs and crime. [Online]. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://justice.gov.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Growth in prison and jail populations slowing: 16 states report declines in the
number of prisoners. [Online]. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. (2010). A guidebook for veterans incarcerated in Virginia. [Online]. Retrieved
February 19, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www1.va.gov.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Federal drug offenses: Departures from sentencing guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentences, fiscal years 1999-2001 (GAO-04-105). Washington, DC: U.S. General
Accounting Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed
results for other outcomes (GAO-05-219). [Online]. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.gao.gov.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Drug offenders: Various factors may limit the impacts of federal
laws that provide for denial of selected benefits (GAO-05-238). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2006). Final report on the impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing.
Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2008). U.S. Sentencing Commission preliminary crack cocaine retroactivity data
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2009). Table 33. Primary drug type of offenders sentenced under each drug
guideline. Fiscal year 2001. [Online]. Retrieved September 25, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ussc.gov.
Ubah, C. B. A. (2004). Abolition of Pell Grants for higher education of prisoners: Examining antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(2), 73-85.
Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory
minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 427-458.

-142-

United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005).
University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit, School
of Law. (2009). Judicial decisions regarding FASD. [Online]. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from the World
Wide Web: http://depts.washington.edu.
Valdez, A. J. (2009). Prison gangs 101. Corrections Today, 71(1), 40-43.
Van Kesteren, J. (2009). Public attitudes and sentencing policies across the world. European Journal on Criminal
Policy and Research, 15(1-2), 25-46.
Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Morrow, B. (2000). Family therapy. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester
(Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation, fourth edition. (4 ed.) (pp. 225-248). Cincinnati:
Anderson Publishing.
Vigdal, G. L., & Stadler, D. W. (1989). Controlling inmate drug use: Cut consumption by reducing demand.
Corrections Today, 51(3), 96-97.
Visher, C. A. (1992). Pretrial drug testing: Panacea or Pandora's Box? (NCJ Pub. No. 137057). Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 521(1), 112-131.
Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). Improving the educational skills of inmates: The results of an impact
evaluation. Corrections Compendium, 24(10), 1-4, 16-17.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic
illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs, 20(6), 64-78.
Wallace, D. J. (2008). Do DWI courts work? [Online]. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncsconline.org.
Walmsley, R. (2007). World prison population list (8th ed.). London, England: King's College London, International
Centre for Prison Studies.
Weisner, C., Matzger, H., Tam, T., & Schmidt, L. (2002). Who goes to alcohol and drug treatment? Understanding
utilization within the context of insurance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(6), 673-682.
Wells, D., & Bright, L. (2005). Drug treatment and reentry for incarcerated women. Corrections Today, 62(7), 9899.
Welsh, W., & Zajac, G. (2004). A census of prison-based drug treatment programs: Implications for programming,
policy, and evaluation. Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 108-133.
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2002). Beyond crime and punishment: Prisons and inequality. Contexts, 1(3), 37-43.
Wexler, H., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2004). Risk and prison substance abuse treatment outcomes: A replication and
challenge. Prison Journal, 84(1), 106-120.
Wexler, H.., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999). The Amity prison TC evaluation:
Reincarceration outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 147-167.
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S., & Campbell, S. P. (2006). Co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse in the
criminal justice system: Some implications for local jurisdictions. Prison Journal, 86(3), 301-326.
Whitlock, E. P., Green, C. A., & Polen, M. R. (2004). Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce
risky/harmful alcohol use. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

-143-

Wilhelm, D. F., & Turner, N. R. (2002). Is the budget crisis changing the way we look at sentencing and
incarceration? New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Williams, N. H. (2009). Silent victims: The impact of parental incarceration on children. Atlanta, GA: Community
Voices: Healthcare For the Underserved.
Williams, S. J. (2006). Is there justice in the juvenile justice system? Examining the role of fetal alcohol spectrum
disorders. Justice Policy Journal, 3(1), 1-15.
Wilson, J. Q. (1983). Thinking about crime. Revised edition. New York: Vintage Books.
Winfield, I., George, L. K., Swartz, M., & Blazer, D. G. (1990). Sexual assault and psychiatric disorders among a
community sample of women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(3), 335-341.
Winterfield, L., & Castro, J. (2005). Returning home Illinois policy brief: Treatment matching. Washington, DC:
Urban Institute.
Wish, E. D., Petronis, K. R., & Yacoubian, G. S. (2002). CADS: Two short screeners for cocaine and heroin
dependence among arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(3), 907-920.
Young, D. S. (1995). Infection control in jails and prisons: A two-tiered intervention. Journal of Correctional
Health Care, 2(1), 47-60.
Young, N. K., Nakashian, M., Yeh, S., & Amatetti, S. (2007). Fact Sheet 1: The extent of people's involvement with
alcohol and drug services, child welfare services, and the dependency court across systems. In Screening
and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention, and Recovery (SAFERR). (pp. B3-B8). Rockville, MD:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
Zanis, D. A., Mulvaney, F., Coviello, D., Alterman, A. I., Savitz, B., & Thompson, W. (2003). The effectiveness of
early parole to substance abuse treatment facilities on 24-month criminal recidivism. Journal of Drug
Issues, 33(1), 223-236.
Zaric, G. S., Barnett, P. G., & Brandeau, M. L. (2000). HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone
maintenance. American Journal of Public Health, 90(7), 1100-1111.
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E. L., & Callanan, V. J. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through
community-based reintegration. Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571.
Zilberman, M. L., & Blume, S. B. (2005). Drugs and women. In J. H. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. B. Millman, & J. G.
Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook. (4th ed.) (pp. 1064-1075). Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you're out in
California. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zogby International. (2006). Americans abandon "punishment only" attitudes in effort to reduce crime. [Online].
Retrieved October 15, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zogby.com.

-144-

 

 

CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prisoner Education Guide side