Despite global reductions in HIV incidence and mortality, the 15 UNAIDS-designated countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) that gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 constitute the only region where both continue to rise. HIV transmission in EECA is fuelled primarily by injection of opioids, with harsh criminalisation of drug use that has resulted in extraordinarily high levels of incarceration. Consequently, people who inject drugs, including those with HIV, hepatitis C virus, and tuberculosis, are concentrated within prisons. Evidence-based primary and secondary prevention of HIV using opioid agonist therapies such as methadone and buprenorphine is available in prisons in only a handful of EECA countries (methadone or buprenorphine in five countries and needle and syringe programmes in three countries), with none of them meeting recommended coverage levels. Similarly, antiretroviral therapy coverage, especially among people who inject drugs, is markedly under-scaled. Russia completely bans opioid agonist therapies and does not support needle and syringe programmes—with neither available in prisons—despite the country’s high incarceration rate and having the largest burden of people with HIV who inject drugs in the region. Mathematical modelling for Ukraine suggests that high levels of incarceration in EECA countries facilitate HIV transmission among people who inject drugs, with 28–55% of all new HIV infections over the next 15 years predicted to be attributable to heightened HIV transmission risk among currently or previously incarcerated people who inject drugs. Scaling up of opioid agonist therapies within prisons and maintaining treatment after release would yield the greatest HIV transmission reduction in people who inject drugs. Additional analyses also suggest that at least 6% of all incident tuberculosis cases, and 75% of incident tuberculosis cases in people who inject drugs are due to incarceration. Interventions that reduce incarceration itself and effectively intervene with prisoners to screen, diagnose, and treat addiction and HIV, hepatitis C virus, and tuberculosis are urgently needed to stem the multiple overlapping epidemics concentrated in prisons.

We conducted a national survey of prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies to estimate the prevalence of entry into and accessibility of correctional programs and drug treatment services for adult offenders. Substance abuse education and awareness is the most prevalent form of service provided, being offered in 74% of prisons, 61% of jails, and 53% of community correctional agencies; at the same time, remedial education is the most frequently available correctional program in prisons (89%) and jails (59.5%), whereas sex offender therapy (57.2%) and intensive supervision (41.9%) dominate in community correctional programs. Most substance abuse services provided to offenders are offered through correctional programs such as intensive supervision, day reporting, vocational education, and work release, among others. Although agencies report a high frequency of providing substance abuse services, the prevalence rates are misleading because less than a quarter of the offenders in prisons and jails and less than 10% of those in community correctional agencies have access to these services through correctional agencies; in addition, these are predominantly drug treatment services that offer few clinical services. Given that drug-involved offenders are likely to have dependence rates that are four times greater than those among the general public, the drug treatment services and correctional programs available to offenders do not appear to be appropriate for the needs of this population. The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices survey provides a better understanding of the distribution of services and programs across prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies and allows researchers and policymakers to understand some of the gaps in services and programs that may negatively affect recidivism reduction efforts.

Research Summary Evidence‐based supervision is the newest in a long line of efforts to advance community corrections. This new model adopts a risk‐need‐responsivity model where the agency uses a risk and need tool to identify appropriate treatment and control services and then assigns offenders to such services. Underscoring this new approach is the creation of a social learning environment that makes supervision officers active in facilitating offender change. The goal is to empower the offender. Maryland's Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) model was one of the first to implement this approach. Controlling for length of time on supervision and prior history, logistic regression results found that offenders who were supervised in this new style were less likely to be rearrested (30% for the PCS and 42% of the non‐PCS sample; p < 0.01) and less likely to have a warrant issued for technical violations (34.7% of the PCS group and 40% for the non‐PCS group; p < 0.10). Policy Implications The study findings indicate that a behavioral management approach can increase the frequency of contacts and obtain positive offender outcomes. More importantly, the PCS model illustrates that supervision agencies can be transformed to achieve public safety goals through focusing on offender change strategies. Providing officers with new behavioral skills to work with offenders and creating an empowering environment can yield positive outcomes. Criminal justice policy should focus on reengineering community supervision to prevent additional penetration into the justice system, to reduce churning, and to reduce incarceration.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE-To estimate the extent and organizational correlates of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in correctional facilities and community-based substance abuse treatment programs that manage drug-involved adult offenders. RESULTS-Most programs offer fewer than 60% of the specified EBPs to drug-involved offenders. In multiple regression models, offender treatment programs that provided more EBPs were community-based, accredited, and network-connected; with a performance-oriented, non-punitive culture, more training resources; and leadership with a background in human services, a high regard for the value of substance abuse treatment and an understanding of EBPs. METHODS-CorrectionalCONCLUSIONS-The use of EBPs among facility-and community-based programs that serve drug-involved adult offenders has room for improvement. Initiatives to disseminate EBPs might target these institutional and environmental domains, but further research is needed to determine whether such organization interventions can promote the uptake of EBPs.