Barriers to evaluating the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars

An Implementation and Process Evaluation of the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District’s Behavioral Health Court

“…Interviewing offenders receiving services enabled consideration of their daily treatment experiences, in this case the nature of IMR and ACT services from the participant's perspective. Participant input has proven useful to identify environmental features perceived as barriers to recovery (Miller, Koons-Witt, & Ventura, 2004) and whether programming is effecting participant engagement (Miller, Tillyer, & Miller, 2012).…”

A Decoupled System: Federal Criminal Justice and the Structural Limits of Transformation

“…On the other hand, research demonstrates that the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) programs are ineffective (Boyum et al 2011;West and O'Neal 2004) and that scared straight programs affirmatively increase the risk of crime (Petrosino et al 2000); nevertheless, these programs continue to be funded and implemented. While offenders with high measures of criminogenic risk and need derive the largest benefit from corrections interventions, and while those with low risk and needs can be made affirmatively worse by interventions (Lowenkamp et al 2006), many new programs exclude offenders with high risk and needs (e.g., Walsh 2011) and "cherry pick" low-risk clients to ensure that the program appears to be successful (Miller et al 2004). In the face of politics as usual, knowledge is not enough.…”

Developing and Implementing a New Prison-Based Buprenorphine Treatment Program

“…Because each of these agencies has different priorities and agenda, and disparities often arise when rehabilitation interventions occur in prison (Miller, Koons-Witt, & Ventura, 2004), frequent meetings between all parties involved and the partnership between the research team and local correctional agencies strongly contributed to the successful implementation of the above mentioned studies. The partnership began in 1999 during the planning stages of the LAAM study.…”

“…Additional resistance in that regard occurred among a number of corrections officers during the LAAM and MMT studies, and directives from key administrators indicating that the projects would take place as planned served to alleviate, but not eliminate, such resistance (Kinlock et al, 2005b). Corrections-research partnerships regarding the conduct of corrections-based drug abuse treatment evaluations have been discussed previously in the literature (e.g., Miller et al, 2004; Welsh & Zajac, 2004), but they remain unusual with respect to opioid agonist maintenance specifically.…”

“…Obtaining approval from the office of the Secretary, to which all wardens must report, facilitated the cooperation of not only the wardens, but also of other correctional administrators, case managers, correctional health personnel, chiefs of security, and line staff. Correctional officers have daily contact with inmates, writing passes and escorting them to treatment interventions, and such personnel can influence, favorably or unfavorably, inmate participation in treatment (Miller et al, 2004). Furthermore, actions on the part of various key correctional administrators could adversely impact research and/or treatment procedures.…”