Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present strategies for cultivating internal support, community partnerships and practitioner engagement for Hospital-based Violence Intervention Programs (HVIPs). In response to growing concerns about community violence and calls to engage the community in its solutions, HVIPs have increased in popularity as innovative and transdisciplinary approaches to violence intervention. HVIPs are one strategy under the broad purview of public health approaches to crime and violence – focusing on reaching recent victims of violence in emergency departments and leveraging this “teachable moment” to offer wrap-around services geared toward preventing future violence or revictimization. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses an autoethnographic and case study approach of Project HEAL (Help, Empower and Lead), a newly established HVIP at Jersey Shore University Medical Center. Findings While there is no “standard” approach, the importance of strong community partnerships and practitioner engagement prior to and during the HVIP implementation process is second to none. Research limitations/implications This case study of Project HEAL’s initial implementation will provide information that can assist other HVIPs in creating and sustaining necessary internal support, community partnerships and practitioner engagement, and potentially help navigate forthcoming statewide and federal efforts. Originality/value Development of meaningful community partnerships and achievement of a high level of engagement from practitioners are key to the successful implementation of HVIPs, the processes of which are not always documented in literature.
Background The overlap between criminal justice system involvement and drug use is well‐documented, and criminal justice agencies have been particularly overwhelmed by the recent opioid epidemic. Treating opioid (and other substance) addiction as a means to reduce risk for future criminality and improve public safety is inherently a responsibility for the criminal justice system. In turn, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to manage and treat addiction among the individuals under its purview. Policy recommendations place emphasis on the use of medication‐assisted treatments (MAT) as a front‐line defense among correctional populations, because its efficacy and effectiveness has been well‐established in other contexts. Despite this, criminal justice agencies have been reluctant or slow to do so. Objectives The current review will provide criminal justice and substance use treatment decision‐makers with information regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of opioid‐specific MAT on offending and overdose outcomes. Specifically, the authors will address the following research questions: Do opioid‐specific MATs reduce the frequency or likelihood of criminal justice outcomes, as defined by official or self‐reported indices of criminal reconviction or rearrest, revocation of community supervision, mandated treatment failure, and specialized court docket failure? Do opioid‐specific MATs reduce the frequency of opioid overdose among individuals with current or prior self‐reported or official record of criminal justice system involvement? Inclusion Criteria Studies were required to use strong quasi‐experimental or randomized experimental designs. All studies used individual level unit of analysis and examined adults and adolescents who are male, female, or nonbinary and racially/ethnically diverse, with current opioid use and who have current or prior criminal justice involvement. Studies had to prospectively test the effects of heroin and methadone maintenance, buprenorphine, or naltrexone on criminal conviction, arrest, revocation of community supervision, technical probation or parole violation, mandated treatment failure, and specialized court docket failure. Overdose outcomes were also examined for samples in criminal justice settings such as jails, prisons, probation, and parole. Search Strategy and Data Collection This review builds upon a prior review conducted by Egli et al. (2009) and examined studies meeting the inclusion criteria above published between 1960 and October 31, 2020. The following platforms and databases (in parentheticals) were used: EBSCOhost (Criminal Justice Abstracts, SocINDEX with Full Text, Legal Collection, Wilson Omnifile, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Women's Studies International [includes grey literature]); ProQuest (Criminal Justice Database, PAIS [includes grey literature], Dissertations and Theses Global [includes grey literature]); Gale (Expanded Academic ASAP, Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center); FirstSearch (GPO Monthly Catalog, PapersFirst [include...
Background: The overlap between justice system involvement and drug use is welldocumented. Justice-involved people who misuse opioids are at high risk for relapse and criminal recidivism. Criminal justice policymakers consider opioid-specific medication-assisted therapies (MATs) one approach for improving outcomes for this population. More research is needed that explores the impacts of opioid-specific MATs for justice-involved people.Objectives: This study sought to assess the effects of opioid-specific MAT for reducing the frequency and likelihood of criminal justice and overdose outcomes for current or formerly justice-involved individuals.
This study examined whether and how discretionary sentencing add-ons (i.e., secondary charges, victim injury points, firearms/weapons points, drug trafficking enhancements) contribute to disparities. We examined add-ons that increase sentencing points and so contribute to a defendant “scoring to prison.” We analyzed: (1) the degree to which add-ons explain racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment (mediation); and (2) whether add-ons are more adverse for minority defendants (moderation). We did not find that add-ons “explain” racial differences in the use of prison sentences. We did find, however, that some add-ons, particularly those that signal “dangerousness,” are racially/ethnically disparate in their consequences. The findings raise questions about the role of court discretion in perpetuating racial and ethnic disparities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.