Using the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey Estimating the Size of the Correctional Population and Substance Abuse Needs Using the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey Matthew L. Perdoni, M.S., Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D., Douglas W. Young, M.S. www.cjdats.org Under the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative, the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices Survey was administered from 2004 to 2005. It is the first national survey on service delivery across the landscape of correctional settings. 8+ Million Adults, 650,000 Juveniles Changes in Correctional Populations The timeline shown below illustrates major initiatives to link offenders to programs/services over the last 3 decades Major initiatives to provide treatment services tend to focus on 1st and 2nd time offenders who are eligible for programs that fall between probation and incarceration statuses Potential “net widening” effect Changes in management of offenders are not systematic: 55% of sampled jurisdictions did not have hidden correctional populations Topics Explored by NCJTP What is the size and scope of the correctional population? What is the prevalence of health care, substance abuse treatment, and other services in correctional settings? How accessible are these services? Do substance abuse treatment programs for drug-involved offenders use evidence-based practices and treatments? What organizational and individual-level factors impact the use of evidence-based practices? Implications An estimate of the size of the correctional population assists in identifying the services needed to address health and safety risk factors Alternatives to incarceration may have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of offenders under correctional control rather than diverting them from prison/jail Involvement in the correctional system may increase the number of offenders recycled through the system due to problems of noncompliance with program requirements (i.e. technical violations) Tools to recognize and treat complex offenders needs are infrequently used A wide gap exists between the services that offenders need and what they receive (see below) Traditional Survey Techniques Prisons: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice, BJS) conducts a yearly census (beginning in 1974) of prisons. Specialized studies are conducted using a stratified sample of facilities based on region (South, West, Midwest, Northeast) and size of the correctional population. Jails: Census conducted every five years (beginning in 1970). Probation and Parole: Periodic census (beginning in 1979) of probation and parole agencies, with information provided by federal, state, and local agencies. *BJS surveys are setting-specific *Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005 adjusted with estimates from Taxman, et al, 2007. A “hidden” population of offenders that are not in standard legal statuses exists--statuses such as pretrial supervision, diversion, alternatives-to-incarceration, etc. Includes the size of the juvenile justice population Includes the fluidity of legal status--some incarceration facilities offer programs in the community and some community agencies offer “half-back” or semi-incarcerated programs Estimated % Offenders in Appropriate Levels of Care NCJTP Survey Methods Prison: Using the BJS frame, PPS methods were used to select a representative sample of prisons (region by population size) and specialized drug and alcohol facilities were sampled with certainty Jails and Community Corrections: Since no complete inventory of correctional agencies is available, a two-staged stratified clustering strategy was used: Stage 1: 72 representative counties selected using a 8x3 scheme: Region (South, West, Midwest, Northeast & the four states with the largest correctional populations) by size of population (<250,000, 250,000-750,000, and >750,000) Stage 2: Census of all adult and juvenile criminal justice agencies and the five largest treatment programs in the jurisdiction Offender Population Estimates Level of Service Provided Prison Community Jail Total Educational/Low Intensive 13.6% 13.5% 31.5% 15.3% Moderate 27.0 3.8 12.4 8.6 Intensive 11.2 1.3 4.7 3.1 % Offenders Receiving Adequate Treatment Services 16.1 5.0 13.6 7.6 Estimated Population from NCJTPS Other Survey Estimates Prison (adults) 1,233,867 1,244,867 Jails (adults) 745,766 713,990 Parole (adults) 908,477 675,534 Probation (adults) 3,949,089 4,122,779 Other supervision (adults) 1,006,586 n/a Residential facilities (juvenile) 57,355 58,818 Local juv jails/detention centers 39,590 Probation/parole (juvenile) 542,349 Other supervision (juveniles) 20,620 Limitations of NCJTPS Survey is cross-sectional; another wave is recommended Great variation exists across counties and states in how correctional populations are managed (and by whom) Community Corrections Acts (1973-Present) Beginning in Minnesota, 38 states have passed acts that create partnerships between the state and counties to provide supervision and sanctioning of offenders, to fund existing community programs, and to aid in the development of alternatives to prison incarceration. Correctional Options (1988-1995) With funding from federal demonstration or Byrne grants, these programs provided treatment and services to offenders via community-based incarceration, weekend sentences, and electronic monitoring. Boot Camp (1983- 1997) Funded through demonstration and block grants, boot camps offer short term programs modeled after military activities. The camps may include treatment and educational programming. RSAT(1996-Present) Block grant funding provides 6-12 month substance abuse treatment programs and aftercare services for offenders in correctional facilities. RSAT programs have promoted the use of Therapeutic Communities. Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) (1972-Present) Initially funded under the Drug Abuse Treatment Act and currently maintained by state and local governments, TASC programs link public health and criminal justice systems. These programs tend to offer screening and assessment services, as well as some treatment services. Drug Courts (1989-Present) Federal grants and local funding support special courts designed to provide treatment within a context overseen by a sentencing judge. These courts are characterized by treatment, testing, and sanctions. Diversionary Treatment (1996- Present) State initiatives, such as California's Prop 36, replace incarceration with mandatory treatment for 1st and 2nd time or nonviolent offenders. Such initiatives are currently in place in 18 states.