Criminogenic Needs, Substance Use, and Offending among Rural Stimulant Users

Recent Incarceration, Substance Use, Overdose, and Service Use Among People Who Use Drugs in Rural Communities

Importance

Drug use and incarceration have a substantial impact on rural communities, but factors associated with the incarceration of rural people who use drugs (PWUD) have not been thoroughly investigated.

Objective

To characterize associations between recent incarceration, overdose, and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment access among rural PWUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cross-sectional study, the Rural Opioid Initiative research consortium conducted a survey in geographically diverse rural counties with high rates of overdose across 10 US states (Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) between January 25, 2018, and March 17, 2020, asking PWUD about their substance use, substance use treatment, and interactions with the criminal legal system. Participants were recruited through respondent-driven sampling in 8 rural US regions. Respondents who were willing to recruit additional respondents from their personal networks were enrolled at syringe service programs, community support organizations, and through direct community outreach; these so-called seed respondents then recruited others. Of 3044 respondents, 2935 included participants who resided in rural communities and reported past-30-day injection of any drug or use of opioids nonmedically via any route. Data were analyzed from February 8, 2022, to September 15, 2023.

Exposure

Recent incarceration was the exposure of interest, defined as a report of incarceration in jail or prison for at least 1 day in the past 6 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The associations between PWUD who were recently incarcerated and main outcomes of treatment use and overdose were examined using logistic regression.

Results

Of 2935 participants, 1662 (56.6%) were male, 2496 (85.0%) were White; the mean (SD) age was 36 (10) years; and in the past 30 days, 2507 (85.4%) reported opioid use and 1663 (56.7%) reported injecting drugs daily. A total of 1224 participants (41.7%) reported recent incarceration, with a median (IQR) incarceration of 15 (3-60) days in the past 6 months. Recent incarceration was associated with past-6-month overdose (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70) and recent SUD treatment (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.36-1.93) but not recent medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD; AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28) or currently carrying naloxone (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of PWUD in rural areas, participants commonly experienced recent incarceration, which was not associated with MOUD, an effective and lifesaving treatment. The criminal legal system should implement effective SUD treatment in rural areas, including MOUD and provision of naloxone, to fully align with evidence-based SUD health care policies.

Guiding officers to deflect citizens to treatment: an examination of police department policies in Illinois

BACKGROUND

The U.S. overdose crisis has motivated police departments to enact policies allowing officers to directly deflect individuals to substance use disorder treatment and other services shown to reduce recidivism and subsequent overdose risk, as well as refer people who voluntarily present at police facilities with a desire for treatment. As a new way of operating, and one that relies on an officer's use of discretion for successful implementation, the practice benefits from guidance through written directives, training, and supervisory support. However, there is little information on the establishment, content, and execution of police department deflection policies, which hampers the implementation and dissemination of this promising practice. We analyzed 16 policies of Illinois police department deflection programs. Using content analysis methodology, we coded the policies for language and terminology, as well as program components and procedures. We aimed to examine how the policies were written, as well as the content intending to guide officers in their work.

RESULTS

We found the policies and programs had notable differences in length, detail, terminology, and reading level. Only one policy mentioned the use of any type of addiction treatment medication, many used stigmatizing language (e.g., "abuse" and "addict"), and few mentioned "harm reduction" or training in the practice of deflection. Many policies restricted participation in deflection (i.e., no minors, outstanding warrants, current withdrawal symptoms), and critically, a majority of policies allowed police officers to exclude people from participation based on their own judgment.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend police departments consider the readability of their policies and reduce barriers to deflection program participation to engage a larger pool of citizens in need of substance use disorder treatment. Since there is limited research on police policies generally, and the field of deflection is relatively new, this study offers insight into the content of different department policies and more specifically, how officers are directed to operate deflection programs.

Substance use and criminogenic thinking: Longitudinal latent class analysis of veterans with criminal histories

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to inform clinical practice by identifying distinct subgroups of US veterans with criminal histories in residential mental health treatment. The study characterized veteran patients on their alcohol and drug use and criminogenic thinking. We also examined predictors and outcomes of subgroup membership.

METHODS

Participants were 341 veterans with a criminal history in residential mental health care. A parallel latent growth trajectory model characterized participants' alcohol and drug use and criminogenic thinking at treatment entry and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

The study identified four distinct classes: 53 % Normative Improvement, 27 % High Criminogenic Thinking, 11 % High Recurrence (of substance use), and 9 % High Drug Use. Compared to the Normative Improvement class, prior to treatment entry, patients in the High Recurrence class were less likely to be on parole or probation, and patients in the High Criminogenic Thinking class were more likely to be chronically homeless. Compared to the Normative Improvement class, at follow-ups, patients in the High Drug Use and High Criminogenic Thinking classes were more likely to recidivate, and patients in the High Drug Use class were more likely to report unstable housing. Depression scores were higher (nearly double) in the High Drug Use, High Recurrence, and High Criminogenic Thinking classes at follow-ups compared to the Normative Improvement class.

CONCLUSIONS

That the Normative Improvement class entered mental health residential treatment with relatively low alcohol and drug use and criminogenic thinking, and sustained these low levels, suggests that treatment does not need to be broadened or intensified to improve these domains for these patients with criminal histories. In contrast, findings for the High Drug Use, High Recurrence, and High Criminogenic Thinking classes, which composed 47 % of the sample, suggest that more integrated and sustained treatment may be needed to reduce recidivism, depression, and homelessness among these patients.

Risky driving behaviours among stimulant drug users and the role of aggression: findings from a national survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Stimulant drug users have a greater prevalence of risky driving behaviour. This study aimed to assess how far this association remains after adjusting for aggressiveness.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional interview study assessing associations between measures of risky driving behaviours as outcomes, measures of stimulant drug use as predictors and a measure of aggressiveness as a covariate.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were drawn from wave 3 (2012-13) of the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III) (n = 36 309 aged ≥ 18 years).

MEASUREMENTS

Stimulant drug use, past-year DSM-5 stimulant use disorder, aggression and measures of risky driving were assessed using face-to-face interviews conducted using the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (AUDADIS-5) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).

FINDINGS

Overall, 2714 (8.3%) respondents indicated life-time stimulant use, and 112 (0.3%) met criteria for past-year DSM-5 stimulant use disorder. More than 10% of ongoing stimulant users and one-third of respondents with DSM-5 stimulant use disorder reported stimulant-specific driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) in the past-year (both P < 0.0001). Adjusted for demographics and independent of aggression, life-time stimulant users reported increased likelihood of driving [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.63-3.42] or speeding under the influence of drugs (aOR = 3.39, 95% CI = 3.01-3.82) and licence revocation (aOR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.87-2.50) (all P < 0.0001). Past-year DSM-5 stimulant use disorder was associated with all outcomes (aOR = 5.48, 95% CI = 2.95-10.18 and aOR = 3.87, 95% CI = 2.23-6.70, respectively, all P < 0.0001), except licence revocation (aOR = 1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Stimulant use appears to be positively associated with risky driving behaviours after adjusting for aggressiveness.