Federal Policy on Criminal Offenders who Have Substance Use Disorders: How Can We Maximize Public Health and Public Safety?

Abstract

The Obama Administration is striving to promote both public health and public safety by improving the public policy response to criminal offenders who have substance use disorders. This includes supporting drug courts, evidence-based probation and parole programs, addiction treatment and re-entry programs. Scientists and clinicians in the addiction field have a critical role to play in this much-needed effort to break the cycle of addiction, crime and incarceration.

Keywords

Drug policy addiction crime incarceration opiate addiction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chandler

R K

, Fletcher

B W

and Volkow

N D

. 2009. Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. JAMA., 301: 183–190.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2009. ADAM II: 2008 Annual Report, Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, The White House.

Greenfield

LA.

Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCJ168632).

Karberg

J C

and James

D J

. Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ209588).

Mumola

and Karberg

J C

. Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ213530).

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2010. National Drug Control Strategy, Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, The White House.

Humphreys

and McLellan

A T

. 2010. Brief Intervention, treatment and recovery support services for Americans who have substance use disorders: an overview of policy in the Obama Administration. Psychol Serv., 7: 275–284.

Gottfredson

D C

, Najaka

S S

and Kearly

. 2003. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: evidence from a randomized trial. Criminol Public Policy, 2: 171–196.

Kleiman

MAR.

2009. When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Hawken

and Kleiman

M AR

. 2009. Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

11.

Fletcher

B W

and Chandler

R K

. 2006. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations, Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

12.

Babor

, Caulkins

Edwards

. 2010. Drug Policy and the Public Good, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

13.

Finney

J W

, Moos

R H

and Humphreys

. 1999. A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: II. Linking proximal outcomes of 12-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment to substance use outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 23: 537–547.

14.

McKay

JR.

2009. Treating Substance Use Disorders with Adaptive Continuing Care, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

15.

Humphreys

, Wing

McCarty

. 2004. Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: towards evidence-based practice and policy. J Subst Abuse Treat, 26: 151–158.

16.

Strang

, Babor

, Caulkins

, Fischer

, Foxcroft

and Humphreys

. In press. Drug policy and the public good: Evidence for effective interventions. Lancet,

17.

Coviello

D M

, Cornish

J W

Lynch

K G

. A multisite pilot study of depot naltrexone treatment for opioid-dependent offenders. Subst Abuse, 332012 this issue

18.

Bird

S M

and Hutchinson

S J

. 2003. Male drugs-related deaths in the fortnight after release from prison: Scotland, 1996–99. Addiction, 98: 185–190.