To me, offering addiction treatment to inmates while in correctional institutions is just plain common sense.  But as for research evidence, there apparently isn’t enough yet to convince governments to mandate it. Here’s something on that subject:

Providing substance use disorder treatment in correctional settings: knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities—overview and commentary 

Currently, the US corrections population numbers around 1.8 million persons, an estimated 65% of whom have an active substance use disorder. In fact, it often played a key role in the crimes that led to their incarceration.

Given that, it seems an awful waste to miss out on an opportunity to address alcohol and drug problems while the offender is literally a ‘captive’ audience.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

We in the treatment community need to recognize that correctional institutions have their own mission, values, and culture, quite apart from what we think of as a therapeutic environment. Their mission traditionally focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation,  deterrence instead of prevention.

Here’s an example: On opening day at one new corrections-based treatment program, the assistant warden formally welcomed  the clinical staff by reminding them that “there’s no such thing as confidentiality in prison.”

I’m sure he saw that as stating the obvious, but the counselors promptly freaked. No confidentiality? Are the guards going to be reading our charts, including clinical notes? Am I going to be dragged into Court and forced to testify about something I learned in a therapy session?

Eventually folks calmed down and the two camps, clinical and corrections, were able to reach agreement on a very solid set of professional boundaries. Through negotiation, they carved out space for a therapeutic environment in a facility intended for a very different purpose.

After a few months of  treatment,  the vast majority of participants were deemed ready to join a supervised work release program in the community. That was good preparation for eventual release, and they appreciated the opportunity to earn money that went directly home to support their families.

Unfortunately, a few years into its existence, the program fell victim to the inevitable budget cuts, and was summarily closed.  But we’d learned a lot in the interim — lessons that could be applied elsewhere.