Damages Caused by Texas' Broken Criminal Justice System
Check out some facts that prove Texas' criminal justice policies are ineffective and costly. Specifically, see how the following topics are impacted by failed "tough on crime" policies. Also, browse through the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice website for an analysis of incarceration/crime trends in
More than half of the people in Texas prison are parents. Children of these incarcerated individuals often end up living with grandparents or in the state foster care system.
The financial impact of over-incarceration policies on these children is staggering: parents who are currently in Texas prisons owe $2.5 billion in unpaid child support to children who live in Texas. [1]
Studies have indicated that children who have a parent in prison are more likely to become delinquent, and are 6-8 times more likely to end up in prison themselves.
[1] The US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that Texas has 164,222 people in prison; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice reports that 55% of the adults in Texas prison are parents, and the Texas Attorney General reports that the average adjudicated child support arrears for Texas prisoners is $28,000 each.
Fully 76% of the increase in admissions to America’s prisons from 1978 to 1996 was attributable to non-violent offenders, much of that to persons incarcerated for drug offenses. [1]
For the thirty-seven states examined, a total of 38,541 inmates were admitted to prison on drug charges in 1986. In 1996 that number had grown to 148,092—nearly four times as many admissions as only a decade earlier. [2]
Using federal, state and local average per prisoner annual costs, the price tag for incarcerating 458,131 nonviolent drug offenders comes to $9.420 billion annually. [3]
America has 100,000 more persons behind bars just for drug offenses (458,131), than the European Union has for all offenses (356,626), even though the EU has 100 million more citizens than the US. [4]
Texas admitted 9,246 people in 1996 compared to 5,805 in 1986 for drug offenses. [5]
From 1980 to 1997, the number of offenders committed to state prison nearly doubled (+82%), the number of non-violent offenders tripled (+207%) while the number of drug offenders increased 11-fold (+1040%). [6]
States with higher rates of drug incarceration experience higher, not lower, rates of drug use. [7]
According to 1997 research by the RAND corporation, spending additional funds to provide treatment for heavy cocaine users would reduce drug consumption by nearly four times as much as spending the same amount on law enforcement, and more than seven times as much as spending the same amount on longer sentences. [8]
[1] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 3
[2] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 5
[3] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 6
[4] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 6
[5] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 7
[6] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 10
[7] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 18
[8] Vincent Schiraldi, Barry Holman, and Phillip Beatty, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000. p 18
So, by continuing to put more people in prison, it is not likely that the crime rate will get lower. In fact, it is even possible that an unintended consequence of our over-incarceration is an increased crime problem.
Since the early 1990’s, Texas has tripled the size of its prisons, expanding its prison space and the number of prisoners faster than any other state. In fact, Texas ' incarceration rate is 51% higher than the national average. [1]
However, the crime rate has not declined in Texas faster than in other states. In spite of prisoner expansion, the crime rate is 24% higher than the national average. [2]
[1] TDCJ Community Assistance Division, Community Supervision in Texas: Summary Statistics January 2003, Prepared by Research and Evaluation
[2] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Community Supervision in Texas : Summary Statistics January 2003, Prepared by Research and Evaluation.
[2] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Community Supervision in Texas : Summary Statistics January 2003, Prepared by Research and Evaluation.
FACT: Texas spends almost all of its criminal justice dollars on prison beds and law enforcement – not on programs that work, like drug treatment and diversion programs.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) spends billions of our state tax dollars each year, but it spends little of its funds on proven treatment and diversion programs. In fact, TDCJ gets about $5 billion from the Texas Legislature every two years, and it spends an average of 90% of those funds on prison beds or "hard incarceration." Only 10% goes towards community-based programming, like substance abuse treatment and probation programs. [1]
Over the past ten years, TDCJ funding of programs outside of prison walls has actually decreased. [2]
The cost of failing to provide Texans with the help they need extends far beyond the criminal justice system. In Texas, the total economic cost associated with alcohol and drug abuse in 2000 alone was estimated at $25.9 billion. [3]
Revocations cost the state more than a half billion dollars in recurring incarceration costs and contribute to the projected need for new prisons. [4]
In 2001, 37 percent of prison intakes and 41 percent of state jail intakes that were revoked probationers accounted for $547 million in direct incarceration costs. [5]
Revocations for technical violations, which range from missing a counseling meeting to a dirty urinalysis, result in average prison sentences of 2.5 years. [6]
More than $650 million in incarceration costs attributable to revoked probationers. [7]
The 11,594 revocations to prison in 2001 represented 33% of all prison admissions and this group will cost the state approximately $470 million in housing costs for their projected prison length-of-stay. [8]
The 9,115 revocations to state jails represented 42% of state jail admissions and this group will cost the state approximately $77 million in housing costs for their projected state jail length-of-stay. [9]
Furthermore, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, over 1.3 million Texans need but do not receive treatment for alcohol abuse, and over 400,000 Texans need but do not receive treatment for illicit drug use.
[1] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Report to House Corrections / Appropriations Committees, March 17, 2004.
[2] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Report to House Corrections / Appropriations Committees, March 17, 2004.
[3] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Annual Report, 2003.
[2] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Report to House Corrections / Appropriations Committees, March 17, 2004.
[3] Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Annual Report, 2003.
[4] Marc Levin. “Laying the Foundation for Better Probation,” Texas Public Policy Foundation. June 2006.p 2
[5] Marc Levin. “Laying the Foundation for Better Probation,” Texas Public Policy Foundation. June 2006.p 8
[6] Marc Levin. “Laying the Foundation for Better Probation,” Texas Public Policy Foundation. June 2006.p 8
[7] Marc Levin. “Laying the Foundation for Better Probation,” Texas Public Policy Foundation. June 2006.p 9
[8] Tony Fabelo, “Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. May 2002. p i
[9] Tony Fabelo, “Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. May 2002. p i
FACT: Our Texas Legislature and our Governor determine who is sent to prison, and for how long. They have the power to change state sentencing laws to refocus on proven treatment alternatives.
As of year end 1999, there were 706,600 Texans in prison, jail, parole or probation on any given day. In a state with 14 million adults, this meant that 5% of adult Texans, or 1 out of every 20, are under some form of criminal justice supervision. [1]
More prison beds are needed in Texas than in any other state because our felony sentences are so long – even for nonviolent felonies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice reported that more than half of prisoners behind bars were being held for a non-violent crime. [2]
Nearly half of Texas ’ 15,000 state jail felony prisoners are serving time for drug convictions involving less than one gram (less than a sugar packet-full). These offenders cost Texas taxpayers $73 million a year to incarcerate – money that could be better invested in education, families, and alternatives that work.
[1] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[2] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[2] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Texas has the largest probation population in the United States, due mainly to its long probation terms for nonviolent offenders. [1] Overall, Texas ’ probation terms are 67% longer than the national average and can last up to ten years. [2]
Stringent conditions are imposed on probationers, and rules are inconsistently enforced from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because of the difficult conditions imposed on probationers, many have their probation revoked and are sent back to prison. In fact, from 1994 to 2000, technical revocations [people who were sent to prison for failing probation with no new offense alleged] increased by 58%. These technical revocations in the year 2000 cost state taxpayers $220 million to incarcerate. [3]
The average amount of time spent in Texas prisons after probation is revoked – whether for technical or non-technical revocations – is 4.3 years. Texas taxpayers spend $470 million per year just to imprison all of the probationers who were revoked from probation in 2001. [4]
Results indicated that while on parole, offenders with the longest time served generally had higher recidivism rates than offenders with the shortest time served. [5]
Recidivism rates either increased or remained constant with increased time served. [6]
For some offense classes, recidivism rates will be reduced by shortening the period of confinement. [7]
Texas has the largest felony population under probation supervision in the country with 240,306 felons in 2001. Approximately 9% of the population under supervision was revoked last year, representing 21,765 revocations. [8]
Close to 60% of those offenders revoked never participated in a residential treatment program before revocation. [9]
Statewide, 55 percent of felony probation revocations are caused by technical violations of probation, not the commission of another felony. [10]
In 2004, more prison sentences resulted from probation revocation than from direct sentencing by the courts. [11]
More than half of the 26,239 felony probationers were sent to prison due to technical violations such as failure to keep appointments with probation officers or to perform court-mandated community service. [12]
Sadly, almost half of those sent to Texas prison with revoked probation had already successfully completed several years of their probation. Most should have been eligible for early release from probation already, but Texas keeps probationers in the system as long as possible to maximize revenue from fees.
[1] Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, Biennial Report to the 78th Texas Legislature, January 2003
[2] Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, Biennial Report to the 78th Texas Legislature, January 2003; based on Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2002.
[3] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Strengthening Community Supervision Sanctions &Services: A Local-State Partnership, Technical Violations Committee Recommendations, March 2001.
[4] Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, Biennial Report to the 78th Texas Legislature, January 2003.
[2] Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, Biennial Report to the 78th Texas Legislature, January 2003; based on Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2002.
[3] TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Strengthening Community Supervision Sanctions &Services: A Local-State Partnership, Technical Violations Committee Recommendations, March 2001.
[4] Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, Biennial Report to the 78th Texas Legislature, January 2003.
[5] Lin Song & Roxanne Lieb . “Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served.” September 1993. p 5
[6] Lin Song & Roxanne Lieb . “Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served.”September 1993. p 6
[7]Lin Song & Roxanne Lieb . “Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served.” September 1993. p 6
[8] Tony Fabelo, “Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. May 2002. p i
9] Tony Fabelo, “Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. May 2002. p i
[10]“A Close Watch on Probationers,” Houston Chronicle, 9/19/06
[11] “Probation bill likely to return,” East Texas Review, 9/07/06
[12] “Probation bill likely to return,” East Texas Review, 9/07/06
FACT: African Americans and Latinos are treated disparately at all levels of our criminal justice system.
Nationwide, Latinos are serving time in prison at 2.5 times the rate of whites. [1] In Texas , if people are continued to be put into prison at the same rate as they are now, 1 out of every 6 Latino men born in 2001 will serve time in prison at some point in their lives. On the other hand, a white man born in 2001 is almost three times less likely to see the inside of a prison. [2]
Furthermore, although African-Americans represent 12 percent of the Texas population, they make up 44 percent of the total prison and jail population. One out of every four adult black men in Texas today is under some form of criminal justice supervision. [3]
In Texas , law enforcement agencies also treat people of color differently. Approximately 2 out of every 3 law enforcement agencies reported searching Blacks and Latinos at higher rates than whites following a traffic stop, even though most searches are fruitless. [4] In some departments, more than 95 percent of African Americans and Latinos searched did not do anything wrong, yet they suffered the humiliation and demoralization of a search that simply wasted everyone’s time. [5]
Similarly, 8 out of every 9 regional narcotics task forces in Texas search African Americans for drugs more often than they search whites, while 7 out of every 9 task forces in Texas search Latinos for drugs more often than they search whites. [6]
[1] Beck, Allen and Paige Harrison. Prisoners in 2001. [2003] Washington, DC: Office of Justice Program, Bureau of Justice Statistics; compiled by Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy Institute Race, Ethnicity and Incarceration in Texas: Recent Findings on the Impact of Imprisonment on Latinos and African Americans, April 2004.
[2] Bonczar, Thomas. Prevalence of Imprisonment in the Population, 1974-2001. [2003] Washington, DC : Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Compiled by Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy Institute Race, Ethnicity and Incarceration in Texas : Recent Findings on the Impact of Imprisonment on Latinos and African Americans, April 2004.
[3] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[4] Dwight Steward of the Steward Research Group, and Molly Totman of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition [TCJC], on behalf of the ACLU of Texas, NAACP of Texas, Texas LULAC, and TCJC; Don't Mind If I Take a Look, Do Ya? An Examination of Consent Searches and Contraband Hit Rates at Texas Traffic Stops, February 2005.
[5] Dwight Steward of the Steward Research Group for the Texas Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, the ACLU of Texas, NAACP of Texas, and Texas LULAC, Racial Profiling: Texas Traffic Stops and Searches, February 2004.
[6] ACLU of Texas, Flawed Enforcement, May 2004, available on the ACLU of Texas website.
[2] Bonczar, Thomas. Prevalence of Imprisonment in the Population, 1974-2001. [2003] Washington, DC : Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Compiled by Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy Institute Race, Ethnicity and Incarceration in Texas : Recent Findings on the Impact of Imprisonment on Latinos and African Americans, April 2004.
[3] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[4] Dwight Steward of the Steward Research Group, and Molly Totman of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition [TCJC], on behalf of the ACLU of Texas, NAACP of Texas, Texas LULAC, and TCJC; Don't Mind If I Take a Look, Do Ya? An Examination of Consent Searches and Contraband Hit Rates at Texas Traffic Stops, February 2005.
[5] Dwight Steward of the Steward Research Group for the Texas Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, the ACLU of Texas, NAACP of Texas, and Texas LULAC, Racial Profiling: Texas Traffic Stops and Searches, February 2004.
[6] ACLU of Texas, Flawed Enforcement, May 2004, available on the ACLU of Texas website.
Only 40% of the nation’s jails and prisons offer drug rehabilitation programs. [1]
Of the more than three million persons incarcerated, only 173,000 actually receive drug treatment despite the fact that some estimate the number of inmates that have drug abuse problems is as high as 75%. [2]
Between 27% and 47% of all arrestees may be at risk for drug dependence. [3]
Only one in three of all jail administrators (47 of 138) reported any programs. [4]
Only 18% of small jails reported any type of substance abuse programming; but 76% of large jails reported substance abuse programs. [5]
Since the jail manager does not have the luxury of extended time to develop comprehensive assessment procedures (psychological testing, educational placement, in-depth medical screening, and the like), the individual inmate must be assumed as a higher rather than lower risk for the purpose of classification if any information is lacking. For this reason, many inmates who might be eligible for programs in a prison setting are classed as ineligible in the jail setting. [6]
[1] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 153
[2] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 153
[3] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 153
[4] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 153
[5] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 155
[6] Mark Kellar. “The Rehabilitation Dilemma in Texas County Jails,” Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 2(1). (2005) p. 158
FACT: Once an adult is convicted of a felony in Texas, that person is a “felon" for the rest of his life – the “felon" label is on the person’s criminal record permanently.
The permanent legal barriers and roadblocks that face felons affect all of life’s most fundamental necessities – food, clothing, shelter, employment, and education.
Food and Clothing: The 1996 federal welfare law prohibits anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from receiving federally funded food stamps and cash assistance [also known as TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]. This is a lifetime ban – even if someone has completed his sentence, overcome an addiction, or earned a certificate of rehabilitation, the bans remains in place.
Shelter: Federal law gives local public housing agencies the ability to deny housing to virtually anyone with a criminal background. Private landlords can [and usually do] refuse to rent to felons.
Employment: Texas does not have any law that prohibits discrimination by employers based on a criminal record.
Education: Federal law states that students who are convicted of a drug-related offense are ineligible for grants, loans, and work assistance [1] – a federal legal barrier that cannot be altered by the states. No other class of offense, including violent offenses, sex offenses, repeat offenses, or alcohol-related offenses, results in the automatic denial of education financial aid eligibility.
[1] Federal Higher Education Act of 1998.
FACT: If Texas politicians continue to adhere to “tough on crime" policies, the end result will be spending billions to construction of thousands of new prison beds.
Texas has added 4,000 new prison beds to the system since the 2003 legislative session, and they are full. If policies do not change, Texas is expected to need 2,000 additional prison beds every year.
And prison spending continues to grow in Texas, increasing faster than health care or education.
Each time the Texas Legislature meets, it passes numerous new “enhancements” [an increased punishment for an already existing offense]. Politicians who want to be tough on crime must realize that being tough means doing “what works" to change criminal behavior.
Texas has the largest probation population (felony and misdemeanor) under supervision in raw numbers (442,251) and per capita (2,955 per 100,000 population). [1]
Prison release rates are declining by 10%. [2]
Parole revocation increasing by 14%. [3]
Probation revocation is increasing by 14%. [4]
Pretrial felons in jails are increasing by 10%. [5]
Revocation of felons for technical violations has grown by 95% during the period from 1994 to 2003. [6]
There is a 14 % increase in the revocations of felons for a new offenseduring the same time frame. [7]
Of all terminations from probation in the state, only 4% were early terminations. [8]
As of July 20, 2005 there were 1,461 minimum risk offenders statutorily eligible for an early discharge.[9]
[1] Tony Fabelo, “Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. May 2002.p 3
[2] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 12
[3] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 12
[4] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 12
[5] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 12
[6] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 17
[7] Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004. p 17
[8] Tony Fabelo. “Facing the Challenges to Successfully Implement the Travis Community Impact Supervision (TCIS) Model.” The JFA Institute. Austin, TX. August 2005. p 10
[9] Tony Fabelo. “Facing the Challenges to Successfully Implement the Travis Community Impact Supervision (TCIS) Model.” The JFA Institute. Austin, TX. August 2005. p xii
FACT: Research shows that evidence-based treatment programs are more likely to reduce crime than “tough on crime” policies.
After conducting an analysis of various criminal justice models, the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council found that offenders who received appropriate treatment were 4 times less likely to go back to prison than those who did not.
Cognitive skills programs produced a 29% improvement in an individual’s inclination towards criminal activity (meaning they were best at decreasing criminal behavior). [1]
Drug abuse is implicated in at least three types of drug-related offenses: (1) offenses defined by drug possession or sales, (2) offenses directly related to drug abuse (e.g., stealing to get money for drugs), and (3) offenses related to a lifestyle that predisposes the drug abuser to engage in illegal activity. [2]
In its 1997 survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that about 70 percent of State and 57 percent of Federal prisoners used drugs regularly prior to incarceration. [3]
A 2002 survey of jails found that 52 percent of incarcerated women and 44 percent of men met the criteria for alcohol or drug dependence. [4]
Nearly 36 percent of adult probationers who regularly abused drugs prior to incarceration said they had received treatment during their current sentences; only 17 percent said they were currently in a drug treatment program. [5]
Forced abstinence without treatment does not cure addiction. [6]
Through drug courts, diversion programs, pretrial release programs conditional on treatment, and conditional probation with sanctions, the offender can participate in community-based drug abuse treatment while under criminal justice supervision. [7]
Those under legal pressure also tend to have higher attendance rates and to remain in treatment for longer periods, which can also have a positive impact on treatment outcomes. [8]
Evidence-based interventions include cognitive-behavioral therapy to help participants learn positive social and coping skills, contingency management approaches to reinforce positive behavioral change, and motivational enhancement to increase treatment engagement and retention. [9]
Better outcomes are associated with treatment that lasts longer than 90 days. [10]
The prevalence of AIDS has been estimated to be approximately five times higher among incarcerated offenders than the general population. [11]
The largest economic benefit of treatment is seen in avoided costs of crime (incarceration and victimization costs), with greater economic benefits resulting from treating offenders with co-occurring mental health problems and substance use disorders. [12]
[1] Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections; reported by Minnesota Judge and scholar Dennis Challeen.
[2] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 12
[3] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 12
[4] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 12
[5] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 12
[6] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 15
[7] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 16
[8] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 18
[9] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 19
[10] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 22
[11] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 24
[12] National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2006, 26