Search

Opioid prevention and treatment programs tailored to young adults involved in the criminal legal system are rare. We examined profiles of polysubstance use among younger and older adults involved in the criminal legal system who use opioids, and explored their experiences and motivations related to substance use. Information gleaned can inform the adaptation of existing programs and the development of novel approaches for young adults in the criminal legal system.Using a sequential mixed methods design we 1) quantitatively identified typologies of polysubstance users among adults aged 18-24 (n = 92) and those age 25 and over (n = 27) involved in the criminal legal system who use opioids, using latent class analysis and 2) qualitatively explored differences in personal motivations, cultural influences, and psychosocial contexts of substance use by class.Our quantitative results supported a three-class typology: the majority of participants were in Class I (73 %, n = 87) and reported using primarily alcohol and marijuana. Participants in Classes II (15 %, n = 18) and III (12 %, n = 14) endorsed distinct and complicated polysubstance use profiles. Further, participants in Classes I and III were significantly younger than those in Class II. Qualitative analysis allowed us to understand associations between patterns of use, motivations, and contexts among young and older adults, comparing across classes.Our results highlight the importance of attending to the needs of subpopulations based on age and use patterns to adapt and develop targeted treatment and prevention programs for high-risk adults involved in the criminal legal system.

In response to the opioid crisis in New York State (NYS), the Unified Court System developed a new treatment court model—the opioid intervention court—designed around 10 Essential Elements of practice to address the flaws of existing drug courts in handling those with opioid addiction via broader inclusion criteria, rapid screening, and linkage to medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD). The new court model is now being rolled out statewide yet, given the innovation of the opioid court, the exact barriers to implementation in different counties with a range of resources are largely unknown. We describe a study protocol for the development and efficacy-test of a new implementation intervention (Opioid Court REACH; Research on Evidence-Based Approaches to Court Health) that will allow the opioid court, as framed by the 10 Essential Elements, to be scaled-up across 10 counties in NYS. Using a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge type-2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, we will test: (a) the implementation impact of Opioid Court REACH in improving implementation outcomes along the opioid cascade of care (screening, referral, treatment enrollment, MOUD initiation), and (b) the clinical and cost effectiveness of Opioid Court REACH in improving public health (treatment retention/court graduation) and public safety (recidivism) outcomes. Opioid Court REACH has the potential to improve management of individuals with opioid addiction in the court system via widespread scale-up of the opioid court model across the U.S., should this study find it to be effective.