Search

Introduction: While extant research has looked at parole and its various actors as an institution, few studies recount the parole experience from the perspective of parolees. Additionally, despite the prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) within the criminal justice system, research that assesses the additional challenges this population faces throughout parole supervision is even scarcer., Methods: To address this gap, we analyze in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 51) conducted with reentering men with SUDs as they navigate parole in Pennsylvania. Three independent coders identified all narratives relating to a broad theme of "parole and probation experiences." The authors then completed iterative rounds of more fine-grained independent coding within that theme., Results: Our results emphasize that SUDs present a significant barrier to reentry success, and the tension of surveillance and revocation is amplified for those enduring simultaneous reentry and recovery. Importantly, our respondents regard parole officers more positively than they view parole as an institution, yet this perception of officers does not equate to provision of reintegration and recovery support. Respondents perceive that parole presents unnecessary additional hurdles to their reentry success, and their perceived risk level impacts their surveillance intensity., Conclusions: The information gleaned through inclusion of perspectives from those enduring parole supervision calls for a critical assessment of current parole practices. Further, the current approach to SUDs within community supervision criminalizes relapse without provision of treatment resources or support., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: The prison-based Therapeutic Community (TC) is widely used within correctional institutions to address substance use disorders (SUDs). While most evaluations of the prison-based TC find the program to be effective, recent mixed evidence and the continued surge of the opioid crisis call for deeper investigation into program operations, barriers to engagement, and sources of treatment effect heterogeneity. Notably lacking from prior evaluations, and critical to our understanding of variable program engagement, is first-hand experiences and perceptions from program participants., Methods: To assess prison-based TC resident perceptions of the program and their recommendations for improvement, we utilize data from the Therapeutic Community Prison Inmate Network Study (TC-PINS), a longitudinal data collection effort conducted in one prison-based TC unit within a Pennsylvania state prison. Specifically, we assess resident responses to the open-ended item "What can the TC do better?" Analyzing 470 responses to this question by 177 residents, two independent coders identified seven substantive categories of recommended changes or improvements to their TC program., Results: Residents provided tangible recommendations for improvement of their prison-based TC program based on their experiences and perceptions. Importantly, a number of their recommendations directly counter the intended model of the TC, which highlights imperative issues underlying the translation of the TC model within the prison environment. Resident suggestions include enhanced structure, increased individualization, expanded curriculum, stricter enforcement of rules, and improved or more experienced staff. Additionally, many question the coercive nature of TC program participation within this prison system., Conclusions: Resident recommendations for program improvement unveil important sources of treatment effect heterogeneity and highlight tangible program changes that can be implemented to reduce barriers to treatment engagement. We provide suggested changes to this prison-based TC based on resident perceptions and discuss both the importance and relative ease of eliciting this critical participant feedback., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)