Another reminder that jails & prisons are not treatment facilities.

Prison Policy Initiative updates for January 30, 2024 Exposing how mass incarceration harms communities and our national welfare

Addicted to punishment: Jails and prisons punish drug use far more than they treat it [[link removed]] Despite the common refrain that jails and prisons are "de facto treatment facilities," most prioritize punitive mail scanning policies and strict visitation rules that fail to prevent drugs from entering facilities while providing little to no access to treatment and healthcare. [[link removed]]

by Emily Widra

Jails and prisons are often described as de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment providers [[link removed]], and corrections officials increasingly frame their missions around offering healthcare. But the reality is quite the opposite: people with serious health needs are warehoused with severely inadequate healthcare [[link removed]] and limited treatment options. Instead, jails and prisons rely heavily on punishment, while the most effective and evidence-based forms of healthcare are often the least available.

This tension [[link removed]] points to a crucial flaw in our nation’s reliance on criminalization: these institutions were never intended to be — and can never function as — healthcare providers. Efforts to reverse engineer them as such have proven ineffective, harmful, and financially wasteful, substituting medical best practices with moralizing and surveillance, from providing exclusively abstinence-based education to scanning and photocopying mail in a vain attempt to keep contraband out. This briefing builds on our past work about the unmet health needs of incarcerated people [[link removed]] and the endless cycle of arrest for people who use drugs [[link removed]] by compiling data on treatment availability versus drug-related punishment in jails and prisons across the country. We find that despite the lofty rhetoric, corrections officials punish people who use drugs far more than they provide them with healthcare.

Substance use disorders in jails and prisons far outpace rates in the general public

The prevalence of substance use disorders at every level of the criminal legal system points to an unavoidable fact: despite the deep unpopularity of the War on Drugs [[link removed]], our society still responds to substance use (and related crimes) as individual failures requiring punishment, rather than as a public health problem — and it’s not working.

Nationally, approximately 8% [[link removed]] of people met the criteria for substance use disorders in 2019, but such disorders are far more common among people who are arrested ( 41% [[link removed]]) and people incarcerated in federal ( 32% [[link removed]]) or state prisons ( 49% [[link removed]]). This means that approximately three million people with substance use disorders are locked up in any given year: at least two million people [[link removed]] with substance use disorders are arrested annually and about half a million people in state and federal prisons meet the criteria for such disorders at the time of their admission.

Based on 2019 data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from SAMHSA, approximately 8% [[link removed]] of people over the age of 12 met the criteria for a substance use disorder, and 41% [[link removed]] of people who had been arrested in the last year met the criteria for a substance use disorder. In 2016 (the most recent year for which the Bureau of Justice Statistics published national prison data), 47% [[link removed]] of people in state and federal prisons met the criteria for a substance use disorder in the 12 months prior to their most recent prison admission.

It’s difficult to see more granular trends in the data — such as the type of substances involved or the health outcomes related to these disorders — but we have some clues from nationally representative jail, prison, and mortality data.

Jails. In 2019, only 64% of all people admitted to jail each month were screened for opioid use disorder, but of those people, about 15% [[link removed]] met the criteria for opioid use disorder. It’s likely that in jails where not everyone is screened on admission, people have similarly high rates of opioid use disorder, given the widespread extent of the opioid crisis. Because we cannot see the full picture through screenings alone, it’s useful to look at mortality data as well. More than 15% [[link removed]] of jail deaths in 2019 were attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication (overdose), a significant increase from 4% in 2000 and 7% in 2009.

Prisons. Many people who use drugs and need care are arrested and jailed over and over [[link removed]] until, finally, one event lands them in prison. We estimate that more than 578,000 people (47%) in state and federal prisons in 2022 had a substance use disorder in the year prior to their admission. And while the mortality rates for drug and alcohol intoxication are lower in prisons than in jails, almost 7% [[link removed]] of all deaths in state prisons in 2019 were due to drug or alcohol intoxication, compared to less than 2% [[link removed]] in 2009. Meanwhile, in 2019, only 4% of all adult deaths in the U.S. were attributed to drugs or alcohol. All of these measures point to much higher rates of substance use disorders in prisons and jails compared to the total population.

Treatment options for opioid use disorder are scarce in jails and prisons

Not every person who uses substances needs or wants treatment, but it is imperative that evidence-based, quality healthcare options be made available for those who do — regardless of their involvement in the criminal legal system. For people with opioid use disorder, this can include psychosocial treatment (including counseling), medication-assisted treatment (MAT), and self-help groups. In correctional settings, the availability of such options pales in comparison to the level of need.

Jails. Of the nearly 3,000 local jails across the country, less than two-thirds ( 63% [[link removed]]) screen people for opioid use disorder when they are admitted. Only half ( 54% [[link removed]]) provide medications for people experiencing withdrawal. An even smaller percentage of jails — 41% [[link removed]] — provide behavioral or psychological treatment, and 29% [[link removed]] provide education about overdose. In fact, the most effective treatment — medication-assisted treatment (MAT) [[link removed]] — is the least commonly provided: just 24% of jails continue MAT for people already engaged in treatment while only 19% initiate MAT for those who are not.

Quality medical interventions [[link removed]] for people that use opioids are especially urgent in jails because of the rapid and acute risk of withdrawal. Over half a million people entering jails across the country each year are experiencing or at risk of this life-threatening [[link removed]] medical event. Importantly, the percentage of people admitted to jail who receive treatment for opioid withdrawal varies significantly between states, which likely reflects differences in both opioid use and availability of treatment. For instance, over 15% [[link removed]] of people admitted to jails in June 2019 in four states — New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington — were treated for opioid withdrawal, compared to less than 1% of admissions in seven other states.

Prisons. Most state and federal prisons ( 81% [[link removed]]) offered some “drug or alcohol dependency, counseling, or awareness programs” in 2019, but among people in state prisons with a substance use disorder, only 10% [[link removed]] had received clinical treatment in the form of a residential treatment program, professional counseling, detoxification unit, or MAT. This suggests the “drug or alcohol programming” available in prison facilities is primarily self-help or peer-based.

Unfortunately, MAT is the least common treatment in prisons: only 1% [[link removed]] of people with substance use disorders in state and federal prisons reported receiving MAT at any point since their admission. In North Carolina, for example, over 9,000 people admitted to state prisons in Fiscal Year 2021-22 (78% of everyone screened during intake) met the criteria for needing intermediate or long-term substance use treatment, but the clinical director of the Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs reports [[link removed]] that they are only able to treat 3,000 cases each year. The state launched a MAT pilot program in 2021, and as of January 2024, only 213 enrollees [[link removed]] have received medications prior to release from prison.

Even when correctional facilities do offer necessary treatments, their one-size-fits-all approaches can be limiting, overlooking the specific needs of different populations. For example, women in prison are often expected to participate in treatment programs originally designed for men. Advocates report [[link removed]] that because “there are fewer incarcerated women than men… there are fewer programs available for women serving time. If support is available, it is not always effective.”

Ineffective and punitive responses to drug use in correctional facilities

Correctional facilities’ preference for punishment does very little to actually reduce drug use and overdoses. It’s not just that officials fail to provide evidence-based healthcare—they actively ignore evidence that punitive drug interdiction policies like mail scanning and visitation restrictions are ineffective and counterproductive, too.

Mail scanning. Prisons and jails are increasingly [[link removed]] diverting incoming letters, greeting cards, and artwork, making photocopies or digital scans of them, and delivering those inferior versions to recipients. Administrators claim this practice will stem the flow of contraband — primarily, drugs — into their facilities, but there is no solid evidence to date that mail scanning has this intended effect. In addition to the emotional [[link removed]] consequences [[link removed]] and needless exploitation [[link removed]] inherent in mail scanning, these practices result in long mail delays [[link removed]] and the disruption [[link removed]] of correspondence-based nonprofits, education programs, and ministries.

There are numerous examples of mail scanning failing to produce any meaningful reduction in drug use or overdoses in prisons across the country:

Pennsylvania: After instituting mail scanning, the percentage of incoming mail that the Department of Corrections reported as “tainted” only decreased by 0.1% [[link removed]] over the course of a year. As of 2023, the rate of positive drug tests in Pennsylvania prisons is now almost 3 times higher [[link removed]] than it was before the policy was introduced. Missouri: In Missouri state prisons, the average number of overdoses per month increased from 34 [[link removed]] to 39 [[link removed]] after mail scanning was introduced in July 2022 [[link removed]]. Virginia: Every year since the Virginia Department of Corrections began [[link removed]] mail scanning in 2017, there have been more overdoses [[link removed]] than in the year prior to instituting mail scanning (even while the state’s incarcerated population declined [[link removed]] during the COVID-19 pandemic). New Mexico: After a mail scanning policy went into effect in February 2022, a report [[link removed]] on the Corrections Department from the state’s Legislative Finance Committee highlighted a nearly two-percentage point increase in positive random drug test results from Fiscal Year 2021 to Fiscal Year 2022 — almost doubling the positivity rate. This essentially “reverse[d] three years of reduced drug use” in the prison system, and the report authors noted that the mail scanning policy “does not appear to have reduced drug use” during the study period.

In fact, several prison systems seem to actively ignore the lack of evidence supporting mail scanning as a drug interdiction effort. The federal Bureau of Prisons has increasingly adopted [[link removed]] mail scanning policies, reportedly [[link removed]] following a letter [[link removed]] from Pennsylvania congressional representatives “urg[ing] the BOP to follow Pennsylvania’s lead,” and such policies are now in place in almost every federal facility [[link removed]].

Visitation restrictions. There are a variety of policies in jails and prisons that restrict visitation and administrators often defend them as anti-contraband (i.e., anti-drug) initiatives. For example, in Virginia [[link removed]], some of these policies have included requiring visitors to change into state-issued jumpsuits without pockets, limiting approved visitor lists to 10 people, millimeter wave body scanners, and banning feminine hygiene products for visitors. In Washington, the latest state budget proposal betrays the state’s biases in responding to drugs in prisons: it includes $4.7 million for MAT in prisons, which is only about half of the funding it would take to meet the needs of people in custody [[link removed]]. At the same time, the Department requested $6.5 million for body scanner staff and operations, and the budget proposal offers even more than they asked for: $7.9 million. Incarcerated people routinely face humiliating search practices — including strip searches [[link removed]] — following visitation, but considering the prevalence of drug use inside prisons and jails, these tactics do not appear to have made a meaningful impact.

Doubling down on failure: misunderstanding drug use inside

Prison and jail administrators often cite contraband medication as the primary reason for restricting access to MAT. While “diversion” of medications like buprenorphine can occur [[link removed]] in prisons and jails, there are simple, proven diversion prevention strategies [[link removed]] that any facility offering MAT could institute, whether they are correctional facilities or community health centers. We know that generally, “illicitly obtained” buprenorphine is most often used to self-treat [[link removed]] opioid withdrawal when treatment is not available or has been denied [[link removed]]. While there is much concern regarding diversion, an extensive analysis [[link removed]] of Bureau of Justice Statistics’ mortality data from 2000-2013 revealed no overdose or death reports mentioning buprenorphine or Suboxone, consistent with previous research [[link removed]] on New York City non-incarcerated overdose fatalities. It is clear that — just like in the community — the proven benefits of MAT outweigh the perceived risks of diversion [[link removed]].

Consistent with their punitive approach to drugs, many corrections officials enforce serious sanctions for positive drug tests, medication diversion, and non-fatal overdoses. Sanctions for drug use in prisons can include solitary confinement, denied visitation, delayed parole hearings, loss of “good time,” reduced access to programming, facility transfers, reclassification, and fines. There is, unsurprisingly, no evidence that these disciplinary policies actually reduce drug use behind bars. However, it’s easy to imagine how such approaches create a dynamic [[link removed]] in which people hide their drug use and engage in riskier, deadlier behaviors [[link removed]]. The culture fostered by punishment does not actually address drug use — it just makes it more dangerous.The culture fostered by punishment does not actually address drug use — it just makes it more dangerous.

Public health research has long been clear that punishing addiction does not actually help address substance use disorders [[link removed]], and there is no reason that it would work in jails and prisons. People who need mental health and substance use treatment are better served in voluntary, non-carceral, clinical treatment settings.

Overdose interventions and deaths

Jail and prison administrators are right to be concerned about drug overdoses behind bars. Overdose deaths are preventable and substance use disorders are treatable, but in 2019, more than 400 people in jails [[link removed]] and prisons [[link removed]] died of drug or alcohol intoxication.

Jails. In response to overdoses, some local jails have increased the availability of naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication also known by the brand name “Narcan”). In Maine, correctional staff in some facilities now carry naloxone [[link removed]] on their belts rather than in a locked first aid kit. In New York City, all housing areas are required [[link removed]] to have naloxone available.

Some jails have gone a step further: in San Diego County, the staff and people in custody have access to naloxone [[link removed]] throughout the jail facility. In Los Angeles County jails [[link removed]] and the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections jail in Kentucky [[link removed]], staff and incarcerated people have access to naloxone and receive training on how to administer it. The benefits of this dual approach cannot be overstated: in a single day in Los Angeles, two overdoses were reversed [[link removed]] when incarcerated people administered naloxone and, over the course of a year, incarcerated people in the Louisville jail dispensed naloxone successfully to at least 24 people [[link removed]] who had overdosed in the facility.

Prisons. The rates of death from drug or alcohol intoxication may be lower in prisons than in local jails, but they are still a serious — and growing — problem: from 2001 to 2019, the percentage of state prison deaths attributed to drug and alcohol intoxication increased from 1.2% to 6.6% [[link removed]]. A September 2022 directive [[link removed]] from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision requires correctional staff to administer naloxone as well as provide first aid and CPR as necessary, and includes a requirement for each facility to institute a procedure to make naloxone more accessible to staff. In Oklahoma, the State Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services reported [[link removed]] that naloxone is available “on every unit” in state prisons, and future initiatives where “every CO will have Narcan on them” are expected as of May 2023.

Making naloxone physically present in correctional facilities is a good first step, but it’s not enough. In April 2023, reporting from Filter [[link removed]] detailed that, while correctional staff in Washington Department of Corrections facilities have access to naloxone, many are not properly trained. When interviewed, two correctional officers — incorrectly — told the reporter that “Narcan…doesn’t work on fentanyl.” The Filter story cites at least one Department of Corrections report [[link removed]] of an overdose scene where staff were unable to locate, and were unsure how to administer, naloxone. As long as the criminal legal system continues to target and incarcerate people who use drugs, screening new admissions for opioid use, training staff and incarcerated people to use naloxone, and making naloxone available throughout facilities are the least these institutions could do.

Making reentry safer for people who use drugs

There are two crucial interventions that every jail and prison should offer upon release: free access to naloxone and appropriate, timely referrals to community-based MAT for people who received treatment while incarcerated. Yet less than one-third of local jails and far fewer prison systems offer either.

Naloxone. While naloxone is relatively inexpensive and easy to administer, in 2019, only 25% [[link removed]] of jails provided naloxone to people being released. However, in the years following the 2019 survey, media coverage reveals that many jails — including those in Louisville, Kentucky [[link removed]], and Kershaw County, South Carolina [[link removed]] — have added free naloxone vending machines near the facility exits.

In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [[link removed]] began providing free naloxone kits and training to people preparing for release from prison. By July 2022, 95% [[link removed]] of people released from California state prisons had received the kits and training. A handful of other prison systems have publicized similar efforts to provide naloxone on release but with little accompanying data on the success of their projects. For example, the Indiana Department of Corrections announced an initiative [[link removed]] in 2020 to offer people released from prison the “opportunity to leave with Naloxone,” but there is little evidence available on the outcome of this program. Meanwhile, some states remain hostile to this very simple and effective intervention. In 2023, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt vetoed [[link removed]] a bill that would allow prisons to give Narcan to people upon release.

Community referrals for MAT. In 2019, only 28% [[link removed]] of local jails provided a community link to MAT on release [[link removed]]. Jails need to partner with their local public health agencies to identify community-based MAT providers for people returning home. For people who started or continued MAT while in jail, uninterrupted access to that treatment is vital. These efforts must include support in navigating the often-complicated health insurance landscape. In 2019, 27% of people on parole [[link removed]] and 23% of people who had been arrested [[link removed]] at least once in the past year reported having no health insurance coverage. People leaving jail or prison who need MAT must have primary care providers and Medicaid [[link removed]], Medicare [[link removed]], or other health insurance set up prior to release.

Recommendations

It is clear that the criminal legal system is not suited to the task of acting as the de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment provider [[link removed]] many claim it to be. There are at least a few areas ripe for intervention [[link removed]] to improve this situation: reducing the number of people with substance use disorders entering the criminal legal system, instituting evidence-based practices in correctional facilities that actually reduce the risk of drug overdoses, and expanding treatment availability inside jails, prisons, and during reentry.

Prevent people with substance use disorders from entering the criminal legal system:

Address the social determinants of health and substance use. In order to reduce the flow of people with substance use disorders into jails and prisons, communities must prioritize housing [[link removed]], physical and mental healthcare [[link removed]], employment, and education. Increased funding for community-based drug treatment and other social services are crucial. Decriminalize drug use. People should not be confined in jails or sentenced to incarceration for drug possession, drug checking supplies, or drug paraphernalia [[link removed]]. Harm reduction efforts [[link removed]] like clean syringe exchanges, overdose prevention centers, safety-focused education programs, and regulating [[link removed]] the [[link removed]] drug supply [[link removed]] will more effectively — and humanely — reduce overdose risk among people who use drugs.

Institute effective, nonpunitive responses to drug use behind bars:

Screen for all substance use and mental health disorders. All admissions to prisons and jails should be screened for active substance use, substance use disorders, and mental health conditions. Avoid punishments and restrictions as responses to drug use, particularly when there is no evidence that they meaningfully impact consumption and overdose. Reflexively restricting meaningful contact and relationships under the guise of drug prevention is especially harmful and counterproductive. This inevitably requires divesting from ineffective practices like mail scanning, canine drug detection, and electronic scanning equipment for visitation. There should be more focus on treatment [[link removed]] than punishment for incarcerated people who struggle with addiction. Invest in comprehensive MAT in jails and prisons including professional, clinical counseling, the availability of all MAT drugs, referrals to community providers upon release, and support reestablishing health insurance during reentry.

Expand treatment availability for substance use disorders:

Treatment participation must be voluntary in jail, prison, and the community. When treatment is involuntary or coerced, when people are re-incarcerated for positive drug tests, or when they’re disqualified from participation in diversion programs based on their history of substance use, treatment is less effective [[link removed]]. Instead, as the Drug Policy Alliance recommends [[link removed]], treatment should always be voluntary, involve clinicians rather than law enforcement, incorporate positive incentives, and use gold-standard medication and other practices. Treatment should begin as soon as possible. Any kind of treatment for substance use disorders and mental health conditions cannot be limited to the weeks or months leading up to release from jail or prison. Treatment requires informed consent. Healthcare providers should seek out informed consent from all individuals who are eligible for MAT and they must have access to all treatment options [[link removed]].

Substance use disorder treatment — as handed down by the criminal legal system — is not working [[link removed]] as advertised. Jails and prisons are not healthcare institutions and their mandate for punishment makes patient-centered care impossible and health outcomes worse. Instead, the United States desperately needs healthcare infrastructure that can support people who use drugs outside of carceral settings. While corrections officials request further investments under the guise of treatment, the stigma, isolation, and punishment that helped foment the present crisis persist. Our communities cannot punish their way out of public health crises, but as long as policymakers insist on incarcerating people with substance use disorders, they need to at least provide evidence-based care to those who want and need it.

***

For more information, including an overview of medication-assisted treatment [[link removed]], and detailed footnotes, see the full version of this briefing on our website [[link removed]].

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Other news: Mail scanning: A harsh and exploitative new trend in prisons [[link removed]]

One of the fastest-growing ways that prisons are responding to drugs behind bars is by scanning incoming mail and providing incarcerated people with shoddy digital versions of letters, cards, and more.

In this 2022 briefing [[link removed]] we looked at this growing trend and how it breaks crucial social connections to the outside world.

Zombie politics: The return of failed criminal legal system policies in 2023 – and how to fight back [[link removed]]

In 2023, despite historically low crime rates, a wave of misguided laws reminiscent of the '90s "tough-on-crime" era swept the nation.

In this recent briefing [[link removed]] we examine the growth of these laws, and provide tips on how to fight back if your state considers them.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Our other newsletters Ending prison gerrymandering ( archives [[link removed]]) Criminal justice research library ( archives [[link removed]])

Update your newsletter subscriptions [link removed].

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website [[link removed]] or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative [[link removed]]

PO Box 127

Northampton, Mass. 01061

Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed] Update address / join other newsletters [link removed] Donate [[link removed]] Tweet this newsletter [link removed] Forward this newsletter [link removed]

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative

PO Box 127 Northampton, Mass. 01061

Did someone forward this to you? If you enjoyed reading, please subscribe! [[link removed]] Web Version [link removed] | Update address [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed] | Share via: Twitter [link removed] Facebook [[link removed] Email [link removed]