Health and Justice最新文献

The COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented threat to the mental health of youth due to its attendant, drastic changes in everyday life brought about by restrictions such as social distancing and the cancelation of in-person classes. Although numerous articles have discussed the impact of the pandemic on youths' mental health, most of them have been opinion pieces. This study used state-wide empirical data to quantify the direct and indirect effect of the pandemic on the mental health of confined youth, a vulnerable social group that is rarely represented in school survey data. Group comparisons of youth who entered juvenile justice facilities during pandemic and non-pandemic times were also conducted. Findings revealed that youth who entered residential facilities during the pandemic due to criminal offenses had higher rates of prior mental health problems and victimization. With major confounders controlled, multivariate regression results showed that the impact of the pandemic on confined youths' mental health is indirect: it conditioned the effect of underage drinking on the youths' mental health. Youth who were admitted into facilities during the pandemic were more likely to experience mental health problems than their peers who entered facilities during non-pandemic times. Implications for policymaking are discussed.

Background: Given high rates of substance use among justice-involved youth, justice systems have attempted to monitor use through drug screening (DS) procedures. However, there is discretion in deciding who is screened for substance use, as not every youth who encounters the system is screened. The aim of the current study was to examine factors associated with selection for and results of oral DS among justice-involved youth assigned to probation to better inform potential DS policy. Electronic court records from 4,668 youth with first-incident records assigned to probation in a midwestern urban county's juvenile justice system between 2011 and 2016 were included in the analytical sample. Race/ethnicity, gender, age, number of charges and charge type for the current incident were included as independent variables.

Results: Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analyses indicated that males were more likely to be assigned to DS (aOR = 0.40, 95%CI [0.34, 0.46]), and more likely to test positive for use (aOR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.34, 0.54]) than females. As age increased, youth were less likely to be assigned to DS (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.87, 0.94]), with non-significant differences in DS results. Greater number of charges were associated with a higher likelihood of being assigned to DS (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI [1.43, 1.68]). Youth with violent offenses were more likely to be assigned to DS than those with other offense types (property offenses, drug offenses, statutory offenses, disorderly conduct, and all other offenses), but less likely to test positive for use.

Conclusions: Many factors were associated with differences in DS, but these factors were not always associated with differential DS results. Demographic or charge-based decisions may not be appropriate for DS assignment.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic produced system-level changes within the criminal legal system and community-based substance use disorder (SUD) treatment system with impacts on recovery efforts. This study examines rural and urban clinicians' perspectives of COVID-19 on SUD treatment delivery for people on community supervision.

Methods: Virtual qualitative interviews were conducted between April and October 2020 with 25 community supervision clinicians employed by Kentucky's Department of Corrections (DOC), who conduct assessments and facilitate community-based treatment linkages for individuals on probation or parole. Transcripts were analyzed in NVivo using directed content analysis methods.

Results: Clinicians were predominantly white (92%) and female (88%) with an average of over 9 years working in the SUD treatment field and 4.6 years in their current job. Four COVID-19 themes were identified by both rural and urban clinicians including: (1) telehealth increases the modes of communication, but (2) also creates paperwork and technological challenges, (3) telehealth requires more effort for inter/intra-agency collaboration, and (4) it limits client information (e.g., no urine drug screens). Two additional rural-specific themes emerged related to COVID-19: (5) increasing telehealth options removes SUD treatment transportation barriers and (6) requires flexibility with programmatic requirements for rural clients.

Conclusions: Findings indicate the need for community-based SUD treatment providers approved or contracted by DOC to support and train clients to access technology and improve information-sharing with community supervision officers. A positive lesson learned from COVID-19 transitions was a reduction in costly travel for rural clients, allowing for greater engagement and treatment adherence. Telehealth should continue to be included within the SUD continuum of care, especially to promote equitable services for individuals from rural areas.

Background: Currently, there are more than two million people in prisons or jails, with nearly two-thirds meeting the criteria for a substance use disorder. Following these patterns, overdose is the leading cause of death following release from prison and the third leading cause of death during periods of incarceration in jails. Traditional quantitative methods analyzing the factors associated with overdose following incarceration may fail to capture structural and environmental factors present in specific communities. People with lived experiences in the criminal legal system and with substance use disorder hold unique perspectives and must be involved in the research process.

Objective: To identify perceived factors that impact overdose following release from incarceration among people with direct criminal legal involvement and experience with substance use.

Methods: Within a community-engaged approach to research, we used concept mapping to center the perspectives of people with personal experience with the carceral system. The following prompt guided our study: "What do you think are some of the main things that make people who have been in jail or prison more and less likely to overdose?" Individuals participated in three rounds of focus groups, which included brainstorming, sorting and rating, and community interpretation. We used the Concept Systems Inc. platform groupwisdom for our analyses and constructed cluster maps.

Results: Eight individuals (ages 33 to 53) from four states participated. The brainstorming process resulted in 83 unique factors that impact overdose. The concept mapping process resulted in five clusters: (1) Community-Based Prevention, (2) Drug Use and Incarceration, (3) Resources for Treatment for Substance Use, (4) Carceral Factors, and (5) Stigma and Structural Barriers.

Conclusions: Our study provides critical insight into community-identified factors associated with overdose following incarceration. These factors should be accounted for during resource planning and decision-making.

Background: The mortality rate among people under probation supervision in the community is greater than that among incarcerated people and that among the general population. However, there is limited research on the distinct vulnerabilities and risks underlying the causes of death in this population. In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the individual and criminal justice-related factors associated with different causes of death. Factors were assessed in relation to the type of supervision, distinguishing between those under post-custodial release and those serving a community sentence.

Results: The study utilised the official data held by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales on the deaths of men and women under probation supervision between 01 April 2019 and 31 March 2021 where the cause of death had been definitively recorded (n = 1770). The high risk of deaths primarily caused by external factors (i.e., suspected suicide (10%), homicide (5%), and drug-related death (26%)) in this population was confirmed. A Gaussian Graphical Model (GGM) demonstrated unique relationships with suspected suicide and drug-related deaths for known suicide risk, history of drug use and recent (< 28 days of death) enforcement action due to a breach of probation conditions. Our findings suggest that that familial violence and abuse may be relevant in suicide and drug-related deaths and that minority groups may experience disproportional risk to certain types of death.

Conclusions: This study identified unique risk indicators and modifiable factors for deaths primarily caused by external factors in this population within the health and justice spheres. It emphasised the importance of addressing health inequalities in this population and improved joint-working across health and justice. This involves ensuring that research, policies, training, and services are responsive to the complex needs of those under probation supervision, including those serving community sentences. Only then can we hope to see lower rates of death within this population.

Background: The wide availability of routine screening with Papanicolaou (Pap) tests and vaccinations against human papillomavirus has resulted in a decline in rates of cervical cancer. As with other diseases, however, disparities in incidence and mortality persist. Cervical cancer, is found more often, at later stages, and has worse outcomes in people who live in rural areas, identify as Black or Hispanic, and in people who are incarcerated. Studies report 4-5 times higher rates of cervical cancer incidence in people detained in jails and prisons than in community-based samples. Studies to explain cervical cancer differences have been inconclusive, though there is broad consensus that issues of access play a role. In this study, we sought to learn more from people who have a history of criminal-legal system involvement and substance use about what barriers and facilitators they perceive in accessing cervical cancer preventive health and other support services in the community.

Results: We conducted semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions by telephone with 20 self-identified women, ages 22-58, in Birmingham, Alabama. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and the transcripts analyzed using immersion-crystallization techniques. Our team identified two main themes, making connections: the importance of interpersonal communication, which stressed barriers and facilitators related to what makes for effective and humanistic interactions in cervical health prevention and other services, and getting it done: the logistics of access and availability, which highlighted elements of cost and payment; scheduling; transportation; and clinic policies.

Conclusions: People with a history of criminal-legal system involvement and substance abuse meet with a variety of enabling and impeding factors at personal and interpersonal as well as systemic levels in obtaining cervical health services. To better ensure that women in this high-risk group have equitable access to cervical cancer prevention and treatment-and thus better cancer outcomes-will require multilevel efforts that include an emphasis on improving the human connection in health care encounters and improving the nuts-and-bolts logistics related to accessing that care.

Background: Improving family engagement in juvenile justice (JJ) system behavioral health services is a high priority for JJ systems, reform organizations, and family advocacy groups across the United States. Family-driven care (FDC) is a family engagement framework used by youth-serving systems to elevate family voice and decision-making power at all levels of the organization. Key domains of a family-driven system of care include: 1) identifying and involving families in all processes, 2) informing families with accurate, understandable, and transparent information, 3) collaborating with families to make decisions and plan treatments, 4) responding to family diversity and inclusion, 5) partnering with families to make organizational decisions and policy changes, 6) providing opportunities for family peer support, 7) providing logistical support to help families overcome barriers to participation, and 8) addressing family health and functioning. FDC enhances family participation, empowerment, and decision-making power in youth services; ultimately, improving youth and family behavioral health outcomes, enhancing family-child connectedness, and reducing youth recidivism in the JJ setting.

Methods: We evaluated staff-perceived adoption of the eight domains of FDC across detention and community services agencies in the state of Georgia. We collected mixed methods data involving surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews with JJ system administrators, staff, and practitioners between November 2021- July 2022. In total, 140 individuals from 61 unique JJ agencies participated in surveys; and 16 JJ key informants participated in qualitative interviews.

Results: FDC domains with the highest perceived adoption across agencies included identifying and involving families, informing families, collaborative decision-making and treatment planning, and family diversity and inclusion. Other domains that had mixed or lower perceived adoption included involving families in organizational feedback and policy making, family peer support, logistical support, and family health and functioning. Adoption of FDC domains differed across staff and organizational characteristics.

Conclusions: Findings from this mixed methods assessment will inform strategic planning for the scale-up of FDC strategies across JJ agencies in the state, and serve as a template for assessing strengths and weaknesses in the application of family engagement practices in systems nationally.

Background: Upon reintegration into society, formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs) experience chronic financial stress due to prolonged unemployment, strained social relationships, and financial obligations. This study examined whether marriage and perceived social status can mitigate financial stress, which is deleterious to the well-being of FIIs. We also assessed whether sociodemographic factors influenced financial stress across marital status. We used cross-sectional data from 588 FIIs, collected in the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health. The financial stress outcome (Cronbach's [Formula: see text] = 0.86) comprised of five constructs: psychological distress, financial anxiety, job insecurity, life satisfaction, and financial well-being. Independent variables included marital and social status, age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of dependents. Multivariable models tested whether financial stress levels differed by marital and perceived social status (individual and interaction effects). Stratified multivariable models assessed whether social status and sociodemographic associations varied by marital status.

Results: We found that being married/living with a partner (M/LWP, b = -5.2) or having higher social status (b = -2.4) were protective against financial stress. Additionally, the social status effect was more protective among divorced, separated, or widowed participants (b = -2.5) compared to never married (NM, b = -2.2) and M/LWP (b = -1.7) participants. Lower financial stress correlated with Black race and older age, with the age effect being more pronounced among M/LWP participants (b = -9.7) compared to NM participants (b = -7.3). Higher financial stress was associated with woman gender identity (overall sample b = 2.9, NM sample b = 5.1), higher education (M/LWP sample b = 4.4), and having two or more dependents (overall sample b = 2.3, M/LWP sample b = 3.4).

Conclusions: We provide novel insights into the interrelationship between marriage, perceived social status, and financial stress among FIIs. Our findings indicate the need for policies and programs which may target the family unit, and not only the individual, to help alleviate the financial burden of FIIs. Finally, programs that offer legal aid to assist in expungement or sealing of criminal records or those offering opportunities for community volunteer work in exchange for vouchers specific to legal debt among FIIs could serve to reduce financial stress and improve social standing.

Background: A growing body of research has called attention to limitations to reproductive autonomy in both women who are socially disadvantaged and in those who have had contact with the criminal legal (CL) system. However, it is unclear whether CL system contact influences contraceptive use patterns and how these processes unfold. We utilize a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether history of arrest is associated with receipt of contraceptive counseling, use of long-term contraception, sterilization, and subsequent desire for reversal of sterilization. We further consider how agents in and around the CL system may influence women's reproductive decisions and outcomes (856 survey respondents; 10 interviewees).

Results: We observe that women who have been arrested more commonly report receipt of contraceptive counseling and sterilization. They are also significantly more likely to want their sterilization reversed. Our in-depth interviews suggest that women with CL contact experience considerable shame, and in some cases, coercion to limit fertility from various agents in and outside the criminal legal system including medical providers, Parole/Probation Officers (POs), guards, and family members.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need for ongoing attention to how exposure to this system may promote uneven use of certain forms of contraception and dissatisfaction, i.e., desire for reversal of sterilization, among these women. Findings further suggest that de-emphasizing the CL system as a means through which to address reproductive needs should be considered.

Background: The societal costs associated with juvenile delinquency and reoffending are high, emphasising the need for effective prevention strategies. A promising approach is Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM). In YIM, professionals support youths in selecting a non-parental adult from within their social network as their mentor. However, until now, little (quasi-)experimental research has been conducted on YIM in the field of juvenile delinquency. We will examine the effectiveness, working mechanisms, and implementation of YIM as a selective prevention strategy for juvenile delinquents.

Methods: This multiple-methods study consists of a quasi-experimental trial and a qualitative study. In the quasi-experimental trial, we aim to include 300 juvenile offenders referred to Halt, a Dutch juvenile justice system organisation which offers youths a diversion program. In the Netherlands, all juvenile offenders between 12 and 18 years old are referred to Halt, where they must complete the Halt intervention. Youths will be non-randomly assigned to region-matched non-YIM-trained and YIM-trained Halt professionals implementing Care as Usual (CAU, i.e., the Halt intervention) or CAU plus YIM, respectively. Despite non-random allocation, this approach may yield comparable conditions regarding (1) the characteristics of professionals delivering the intervention and (2) case type and severity. Youth and caregiver(s) self-report data will be collected at pre-and post-test and a 6-month follow-up and complemented with official Halt records data. Multilevel analyses will test whether youths following CAU plus YIM show a stronger increase in resilience factors and a stronger decline in the need for formal support and delinquency than youths following CAU. In the qualitative study, we will organise focus group interviews with YIM-trained professionals to explore boosters and barriers experienced by professionals during the implementation of YIM.

Discussion: The proposed study will help identify the effectiveness of YIM in strengthening resilience factors and possibly decreasing juvenile delinquency. In addition, it may offer insights into how and for whom YIM works. Finally, this study can help strengthen the implementation of YIM in the future.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov (# NCT05555472). Registered 7 September 2022. https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT05555472?cond=Youth+Initiated+Mentoring&draw=2&rank=1 .