Explore the vast range of titles available.

Incarceration is a pervasive issue in the United States that is enormously costly to families, communities, and society at large. The path from prison back to prison may depend on the relationship a person has with their probation or parole officer (PPO). If the relationship lacks appropriate care and trust, violations and recidivism (return to jail or prison) may be more likely to occur. Here, we test whether an “empathic supervision” intervention with PPOs—that aims to reduce collective blame against and promote empathy for the perspectives of adults on probation or parole (APPs)—can reduce rates of violations and recidivism. The intervention highlights the unreasonable expectation that all APPs will reoffend (collective blame) and the benefits of empathy—valuing APPs’ perspectives. Using both within-subject (monthly official records for 10 mo) and between-subject (treatment versus control) comparisons in a longitudinal study with PPOs in a large US city (NPPOs = 216; NAPPs =∼20,478), we find that the empathic supervision intervention reduced collective blame against APPs 10 mo postintervention and reduced between-subject violations and recidivism, a 13% reduction that would translate to less taxpayer costs if scaled. Together, these findings illustrate that very low-cost psychological interventions that target empathy in relationships can be cost effective and combat important societal outcomes in a lasting manner.

\"In this volume, prominent scholars across multiple disciplines examine how parental incarceration affects children and what can be done to help them. Sociologists, demographers, developmental psychologists, family scientists, and criminologists summarize the strongest research on the consequences of parental incarceration for children, with special attention to mediating and moderating variables. Scholars review policies and interventions that could lessen the likelihood of parental incarceration and/or help children whose parents have been imprisoned or jailed\"-- Provided by publisher.

Methadone is an effective treatment for opioid dependence. When people who are receiving methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence are incarcerated in prison or jail, most US correctional facilities discontinue their methadone treatment, either gradually, or more often, abruptly. This discontinuation can cause uncomfortable symptoms of withdrawal and renders prisoners susceptible to relapse and overdose on release. We aimed to study the effect of forced withdrawal from methadone upon incarceration on individuals' risk behaviours and engagement with post-release treatment programmes. In this randomised, open-label trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) inmates of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RI, USA) who were enrolled in a methadone maintenance-treatment programme in the community at the time of arrest and wanted to remain on methadone treatment during incarceration and on release, to either continuation of their methadone treatment or to usual care—forced tapered withdrawal from methadone. Participants could be included in the study only if their incarceration would be more than 1 week but less than 6 months. We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random permutation, and urn randomisation procedures to stratify participants by sex and race. Participants in the continued-methadone group were maintained on their methadone dose at the time of their incarceration (with dose adjustments as clinically indicated). Patients in the forced-withdrawal group followed the institution's standard withdrawal protocol of receiving methadone for 1 week at the dose at the time of their incarceration, then a tapered withdrawal regimen (for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 5 mg per day to 100 mg, then reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg; for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg). The main outcomes were engagement with a methadone maintenance-treatment clinic after release from incarceration and time to engagement with methadone maintenance treatment, by intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses, which we established in a follow-up interview with the participants at 1 month after their release from incarceration. Our study paid for 10 weeks of methadone treatment after release if participants needed financial help. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874964. Between June 14, 2011, and April 3, 2013, we randomly assigned 283 prisoners to our study, 142 to continued methadone treatment, and 141 to forced withdrawal from methadone. Of these, 60 were excluded because they did not fit the eligibility criteria, leaving 114 in the continued-methadone group and 109 in the forced-withdrawal group (usual care). Participants assigned to continued methadone were more than twice as likely than forced-withdrawal participants to return to a community methadone clinic within 1 month of release (106 [96%] of 110 in the continued-methadone group compared with 68 [78%] of 87 in the forced-withdrawal group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·04, 95% CI 1·48–2·80). We noted no differences in serious adverse events between groups. For the continued-methadone and forced-withdrawal groups, the number of deaths were one and zero, non-fatal overdoses were one and two, admissions to hospital were one and four; and emergency-room visits were 11 and 16, respectively. Although our study had several limitations—eg, it only included participants incarcerated for fewer than 6 months, we showed that forced withdrawal from methadone on incarceration reduced the likelihood of prisoners re-engaging in methadone maintenance after their release. Continuation of methadone maintenance during incarceration could contribute to greater treatment engagement after release, which could in turn reduce the risk of death from overdose and risk behaviours. National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Lifespan/Tufts/Brown Center for AIDS Research from the National Institutes of Health.

Purpose: To determine the effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based anger management training on anger and aggression levels of individuals convicted of violent crimes. Method: This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in a prison. Seventy-two individuals who met inclusion criteria were included in the study sample. The experimental group received 10 sessions of CBT–based anger management therapy over a 5-week period. Results: After CBT–based anger management training, mean total score and mean subdimension scores of the Trait Anger and Anger Expression Style Scale of the experimental group decreased significantly compared to the control group. Similarly, Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire total mean score and mean sub-dimension scores of the experimental group significantly decreased compared to the control group. Conclusion: Results demonstrate that CBT–based anger management training effectively reduces anger and aggression levels among individuals convicted of violent crimes. In this regard, it is recommended that forensic psychiatric–mental health nurses, physicians, and psychologists working in correctional institutions apply CBT–based anger management training. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx(xx), xx–xx.]

\"In most countries, problematic drug use is dealt with primarily as a criminal justice issue, rather than a health issue. Accordingly, a large proportion of people in prison have a history of alcohol, tobacco and/or illicit drug use and, despite the best efforts of correctional authorities, some continue to use these substances in prison, often in very risky ways. After release from prison, many relapse to risky substance use, and are at high risk of poor health outcomes, preventable death, or reincarceration.In this edited volume, for the first time we bring together 40 contributors from 10 countries to review what is known about alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use in people who cycle through prisons, and the harms associated with use of these substances. We consider some evidence-based responses to these harms - both in prison and after return to the community - and discuss their implications for policy reform.This book is international in scope and multi-disciplinary in character. It brings together and integrates the perspectives of public health and addictions researchers, criminologists and correctional leaders, epidemiologists, physicians, and human rights lawyers. Our contributors are unified in their commitment to evidence-informed policy - that is, doing what we know works. An overarching theme pervading all of the chapters is that people who cycle through prisons come from the community, and almost always return to the community. Their health problems are therefore our health problems; in other words, 'prisoner health is public health'\"--Provided by publisher.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is highly prevalent among incarcerated populations; however, research has yet to examine whether prisoners diagnosed with BPD experience greater interpersonal dysfunction and institutional misconduct while incarcerated. This study drew from a sample of 184 male and female prisoners diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) in a randomized trial of depression treatment. The presence of a BPD diagnosis (n = 69) was analyzed as a predictor of disciplinary incidents/infractions (i.e., fights, arguments with staff, disciplinary infractions, isolation), time spent in isolation, and types of aggression and victimization experiences during incarceration. There was a trend suggesting prisoners with BPD were about twice as likely as those without BPD to report disciplinary incidents/infractions (OR = 1.76 [0.93, 3.32], p = 0.075). Having a BPD diagnosis was unrelated to time in isolation and overall aggression and victimization. However, prisoners with BPD were more likely than those without BPD to perpetrate and be victimized by psychological aggression. Due to high rates of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) in the sample as a whole (72%), additional analyses compared outcomes across prisoners with no BPD or ASPD diagnosis, BPD diagnosis only, ASPD diagnosis only, and comorbid BPD and ASPD. Prisoners with comorbid BPD and ASPD were no more likely than prisoners with ASPD only to report disciplinary incidents/infractions, but were significantly more likely than those with ASPD only to report perpetrating and being victimized by psychological aggression. Among prisoners with MDD, those with a BPD diagnosis have increased risk of psychological aggression and disciplinary infractions during incarceration. •Examined institutional misconduct, aggression, & victimization in inmates with BPD•Compared outcomes in inmates with co-occurring BPD and ASPD to those with either disorder alone•Inmates with BPD had higher risk of disciplinary infractions & psychological aggression.•Co-occurring BPD and ASPD associated with more psychological aggression than ASPD only•Inmates with BPD at risk of verbal misconduct during incarceration

Prisoners have an exceptional risk of suicide. Cognitive-behavioural therapy for suicidal behaviour has been shown to offer considerable potential, but has yet to be formally evaluated within prisons. This study investigated the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a novel, manualized cognitive-behavioural suicide prevention (CBSP) therapy for suicidal male prisoners. A pilot randomized controlled trial of CBSP in addition to treatment as usual (CBSP; n = 31) compared with treatment as usual (TAU; n = 31) alone was conducted in a male prison in England. The primary outcome was self-injurious behaviour occurring within the past 6 months. Secondary outcomes were dimensions of suicidal ideation, psychiatric symptomatology, personality dysfunction and psychological determinants of suicide, including depression and hopelessness. The trial was prospectively registered (number ISRCTN59909209). Relative to TAU, participants receiving CBSP therapy achieved a significantly greater reduction in suicidal behaviours with a moderate treatment effect [Cohen's d = -0.72, 95% confidence interval -1.71 to 0.09; baseline mean TAU: 1.39 (S.D. = 3.28) v. CBSP: 1.06 (S.D. = 2.10), 6 months mean TAU: 1.48 (S.D. = 3.23) v. CBSP: 0.58 (S.D. = 1.52)]. Significant improvements were achieved on measures of psychiatric symptomatology and personality dysfunction. Improvements on psychological determinants of suicide were non-significant. More than half of the participants in the CBSP group achieved a clinically significant recovery by the end of therapy, compared with a quarter of the TAU group. The delivery and evaluation of CBSP therapy within a prison is feasible. CBSP therapy offers significant promise in the prevention of prison suicide and an adequately powered randomized controlled trial is warranted.