Factors Associated with Recidivism among Corrections-Based Treatment Participants in Rural and Urban Areas

Staton‐Tindall, Michele; Harp, Kathi L.H.; Winston, Erin; Webster, J. Matthew; Pangburn, Kevin

doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.03.005

Cited by 30 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…showers/clean clothes) and structural barriers including possessing IDs and finding employment and housing. Basic needs have been shown to be integral to the recovery and rehabilitation of PWID [41,42], however LEOs usually did not discuss programs addressing this. Thus, it is likely that addressing substance use related problems should be prioritized as a referral service yet bundled with services to address basic needs in order to garner support and utilization from LEOs and PWID.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences and acceptability of law enforcement initiated referrals for people who inject drugs: a mixed methods analysis

Olgin

Bórquez

Baker

et al. 2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Law enforcement officers (LEOs) come into frequent contact with people who inject drugs (PWID). Through service referrals, LEOs may facilitate PWID engagement in harm reduction, substance use treatment, and other health and supportive services. Little is known about PWID and LEO attitudes and concerns about service referrals, however. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to examine the alignment of service referral preferences and acceptability among PWID and LEOs in Tijuana, Mexico. Methods We assessed service referral preferences and perceived likelihood of participation in health and social services, integrating data from structured questionnaires with 280 PWID and 306 LEOs, contextualized by semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 15 PWID and 17 LEOs enrolled in two parallel longitudinal cohorts in Tijuana, Mexico. Results Among potential service referral options, both PWID (78%) and LEOs (88%) most frequently cited assistance with drug- and alcohol-use disorders. Over half of PWID and LEOs supported including harm reduction services such as syringe service programs, overdose prevention, and HIV testing. The majority of PWID supported LEO referrals to programs that addressed basic structural needs (e.g. personal care [62%], food assistance [61%], housing assistance [58%]). However, the proportion of LEOs (30–45%) who endorsed these service referrals was significantly lower (p < 0.01). Regarding referral acceptability, 71% of PWID reported they would be very likely or somewhat likely to make use of a referral compared to 94% of LEOs reporting that they thought PWID would always or sometimes utilize them. These results were echoed in the qualitative analysis, although practical barriers to referrals emerged, whereby PWID were less optimistic that they would utilize referrals compared to LEOs. Conclusions We identified strong support for LEO service referrals among both LEO and PWID respondents, with the highest preference for substance use treatment. LEO referral programs offer opportunities to deflect PWID contact with carceral systems while facilitating access to health and social services. However, appropriate investments and political will are needed to develop an evidence-based (integrated) service infrastructure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences and acceptability of law enforcement initiated referrals for people who inject drugs: a mixed methods analysis

Olgin

Bórquez

Baker

et al. 2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Protective factors not yet discussed included education level and having a sponsor for fulltime individuals, and more rural living for part-time and unemployed individuals. Previous research has found urban individuals to be at higher odds of reincarceration than rural individuals (Staton-Tindall, Harp, Winston, Webster, & Pangburn, 2015). Returning citizens living in increasingly rural areas may be more likely to receive resources from dense social networks (Wodahl, 2006) or funds from welfare (Havens et al, 2007) that are more salient when income from employment is not available or substantial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Employment Dichotomy: An Examination of Recidivism and Days Remaining in the Community by Post-Release Employment Status

Bunting

Staton

Winston

et al. 2018

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminological research has tended to consider employment in a dichotomy of employed versus unemployed. The current research examines a sample of individuals one-year post-release to assess the extent to which four distinct employment categories (full-time, part-time, disabled, and unemployed) are associated with reincarceration and days remaining in the community. Findings indicate disabled individuals remain in the community longer and at a higher proportion compared to other employment categories. Further, unique protective and risk factors are found to be associated with each employment category while some risk factors (e.g., homelessness) highlight the importance of addressing reentry barriers regardless as to employment status. While the positive impact of employment upon release for returning citizens 1 are rather undisputed, the particular way in which employment benefits individuals remains unclear. This may be due, in part to the varying operationalization of employment across research (Webster et al., 2007). Generally, research tends to consider employment in a dichotomy, comparing individuals who are employed to those who are unemployed. Two pressing issues arise from this dichotomy. First, there are likely distinct benefits between full-and part-time work and these two groups are not uniformly considered across research. Secondly, disabled individuals are often discounted in this dichotomy. Individuals reporting unemployment due to disability are removed from analysis, considered unemployed if operationalized as 'not 1 Throughout this article, positive reentry language is used. A focus on returning citizens, rather than use of the language "previously incarcerated" or "ex-offender" is preferred to avoid stigma and labeling effects. Language also reflects positive accomplishments such as "time remaining in the community" rather than the focus on reincarceration as the event. Further, focus is on protective factors, those that reduce the odds of reincarceration thereby increasing time in the community, as well as risk factors, those that increase the odds of reincarceration.

show abstract

“…25 Improving an inmate’s chances of being hired into the food industry may also help to reduce recidivism. 26 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foodborne Disease Outbreaks in Correctional Institutions—United States, 1998–2014

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To present the first update on the epidemiology of US foodborne correctional institution outbreaks in 20 years. Methods We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System to describe correctional institution outbreaks from 1998 to 2014 and compare them with other foodborne outbreaks. Results Two hundred foodborne outbreaks in correctional institutions were reported, resulting in 20 625 illnesses, 204 hospitalizations, and 5 deaths. Median number of outbreak-associated illnesses per 100 000 population per year was 45 (range = 11–141) compared with 7 (range = 4–10) for other outbreaks. These outbreaks accounted for 6% (20 625 of 358 330) of outbreak-associated foodborne illnesses. Thirty-seven states reported at least 1 outbreak in a correctional institution. Clostridium perfringens (28%;36 of 128) was the most frequently reported single etiology. The most frequently reported contributing factor was food remaining at room temperature (37%; 28 of 76). Conclusions Incarcerated persons suffer a disproportionate number of outbreak-associated foodborne illnesses. Better food safety oversight and regulation in correctional food services could decrease outbreaks. Public Health Implications Public health officials, correctional officials, and food suppliers can work together for food safety. Clearer jurisdiction over regulation of correctional food services is needed.

show abstract

Factors Associated with Recidivism among Corrections-Based Treatment Participants in Rural and Urban Areas

Cited by 30 publications

References 33 publications

Preferences and acceptability of law enforcement initiated referrals for people who inject drugs: a mixed methods analysis

Preferences and acceptability of law enforcement initiated referrals for people who inject drugs: a mixed methods analysis

Beyond the Employment Dichotomy: An Examination of Recidivism and Days Remaining in the Community by Post-Release Employment Status

Foodborne Disease Outbreaks in Correctional Institutions—United States, 1998–2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About