Addiction & Criminology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Commentary - Addiction & Criminology (2025) Volume 8, Issue 1

Addiction Treatment in Corrections: Evaluating Effectiveness and Barriers.

Natti Ohayon *

Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

*Corresponding Author:
Natti Ohayon
Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
E-mail: nat.ohayon@gmail.com

Received: 02-Feb -2025, Manuscript No. AARA-25-161185; Editor assigned: 03-Feb-2025, PreQC No. AARA-25-161185 (PQ); Reviewed:16-Feb-2024, QC No. AARA-25-161185; Revised:21-Feb-2025, Manuscript No. AARA-25-161185 (R); Published:28-Feb-2025, DOI:10.35841/aara-8.1.246

Citation: Ohayon N. Addiction treatment in corrections: Evaluating effectiveness and barriers. Addict Criminol.2025;8(1):246

Visit for more related articles at Addiction & Criminology

Abstract

  

Introduction

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are prevalent among incarcerated individuals, making addiction treatment a critical component of correctional rehabilitation. Studies indicate that approximately 65% of prisoners in the United States have a diagnosable substance use disorder, yet only a fraction receive adequate treatment while incarcerated. Effective addiction treatment in corrections can reduce recidivism, promote recovery, and improve public safety [1].

However, significant barriers hinder the implementation and effectiveness of these programs. This article explores the effectiveness of addiction treatment in correctional settings and examines the barriers that prevent optimal outcomes [2].

Evidence suggests that well-structured addiction treatment programs within correctional settings can significantly reduce substance use and criminal behavior post-release. Several treatment modalities have been found to be effective. MAT combines FDA-approved medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone with counseling and behavioral therapies. Research indicates that MAT reduces opioid relapse, overdose risk, and criminal activity [3].

Despite its effectiveness, MAT remains underutilized in prisons due to stigma, funding limitations, and policy restrictions. CBT is a widely used therapeutic approach that helps individuals recognize and change patterns of substance use and criminal thinking. Studies show that inmates who receive CBT-based interventions exhibit lower rates of recidivism and substance use relapse compared to those who do not receive treatment [4].

TCs involve a structured, peer-supported residential treatment approach within correctional facilities. These programs have been found to improve long-term abstinence and reduce recidivism. TCs focus on addressing both substance use and criminal behavior through group therapy, vocational training, and reintegration planning [5].

Specialized drug courts offer treatment-focused alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. Participants in these programs undergo supervised treatment and regular judicial monitoring, leading to better recovery outcomes and reduced recidivism [6].

Despite the proven benefits of addiction treatment in corrections, several barriers limit its accessibility and effectiveness. One of the most significant barriers is the lack of adequate funding for correctional treatment programs. Many prisons and jails operate under tight budgets, prioritizing security over rehabilitation [7].

Consequently, only a small percentage of incarcerated individuals receive comprehensive addiction treatment. The stigma associated with substance use disorders and addiction treatment especially MAT often leads to reluctance among correctional staff and policymakers to implement comprehensive programs [8].

Some view addiction as a moral failing rather than a medical condition, leading to resistance against evidence-based treatments. Effective addiction treatment requires continuity of care after an individual is released from prison. However, many former inmates struggle to access community-based treatment due to barriers such as lack of insurance, housing instability, and stigma from healthcare providers. Without ongoing support, individuals are at high risk of relapse and re-incarceration [9].

Many incarcerated individuals with SUDs also suffer from co-occurring mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Integrated treatment approaches addressing both addiction and mental health issues are rare in correctional settings, leading to poor treatment outcomes. Many correctional systems prioritize punishment over rehabilitation, leading to policies that hinder treatment access. Mandatory minimum sentences, limited parole opportunities, and harsh disciplinary measures for drug use within prisons exacerbate addiction problems rather than addressing their root causes [10].

conclusion

Addiction treatment in correctional settings is a crucial component of reducing recidivism and promoting recovery. While various treatment modalities have proven effective, significant barriers, including funding constraints, stigma, and lack of post-release support, hinder their success. Addressing these challenges requires a shift from punitive policies to a rehabilitative approach that prioritizes evidence-based treatment and reintegration support. By implementing comprehensive addiction treatment programs, correctional facilities can improve public health, enhance safety, and break the cycle of addiction and incarceration.

References

  1. McLellan AT, McKay JR, Forman R, Cacciola J, Kemp J. Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow?up to concurrent recovery monitoring. Addict. 2005;100(4):447-58.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Phillips KA, Epstein DH, Preston KL. Psychostimulant addiction treatment. Neuropharmacol. 2014;87:150-60.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Brorson HH, Arnevik EA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Duckert F. Drop-out from addiction treatment: A systematic review of risk factors. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(8):1010-24.

    4. Google Scholar

  4. Dackis C, O'Brien C. Neurobiology of addiction: treatment and public policy ramifications. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(11):1431-6.

    5. Google Scholar

  5. DiClemente CC, Schlundt D, Gemmell L. Readiness and stages of change in addiction treatment. Am J Addict. 2004;13(2):103-19.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, Gould F, Meyers K, Bencivengo M, Durell J. Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addict. 1998;93(10):1489-99.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Forman RF, Bovasso G, Woody G. Staff beliefs about addiction treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001;21(1):1-9.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Weisner C, Mertens J, Parthasarathy S, Moore C, Lu Y. Integrating primary medical care with addiction treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2001;286(14):1715-23.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Guydish J, Passalacqua E, Tajima B, et al., Smoking prevalence in addiction treatment: a review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(6):401-11.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Angres DH, Bettinardi–Angres K. The disease of addiction: Origins, treatment, and recovery. Disease-a-month. 2008;54(10):696-721.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App