There are several types of treatment programmes in the prisons. There are the motiva-
tion and pre-treatment projects in the lock-up facilities all over Denmark that are pri-
marily based in the abuse centres of the local municipality, and the aim is to prepare the remand prisoners for the treatment provided to them in the prisons when serving their sentence or after release from remand custody. Then there are the treatment de-
partments, which are completely isolated from the ordinary prison environment and
are thus defined as inpatient treatment units, given that the inmates move about in a therapeutic treatment environment.
Furthermore, there are follow-up treatment units in selected prisons for inmate who have long-term sentences and who have completed primary treatment. The follow-up treatment has a major focus on education /employment and re-integration and is car- ried out according to the import model. In this connection, there are programmes for psychosocial support in connection with substitution treatment (medical treatment with methadone/Subutex) across the existing department in all prisons. Quite a few in- mates are in substitution treatment and are followed-up by supportive sessions. Similarly, there are programmes for cocaine abuse treatment for inmates in open pris- ons and programmes for cannabis abusers in all the prisons. The cocaine, cannabis and substitution programmes have been planned as day treatment (outpatient treat- ment), during which the inmates are referred to common departments where they par- ticipate in treatment for a short-term or long-term period as a supplement to or instead of training/other type of employment.
Finally, there are the special so-called contract departments, where no treatment is provided, but where inmates who do not wish to serve their sentence with drug abusers can be sure of serving their sentence in a completely drug-free environment. The Dan- ish Prison and Probation Service also has 8 social re-integration pensions.
9.4 Drug abuse among the prison population
Table 9.4.1 below shows the use of intoxicants prior to imprisonment (The Danish Pris- on and Probation Service 2013). Almost 60% of the prisoners in prisons and lock-up facilities report in 2011 and in 2012 having used intoxicants 30 days prior to their im- prisonment. Approximately 38% in both years maintained that they had not taken any
intoxicants and 3% did not wish to inform about their drug use. In the open prisons, the proportion of prisoners who reported in 2012 having taken drugs 30 days prior to their imprisonment was 69% compared to 60% in the closed prisons.
Table 9.4.1. Inmates’ use of drugs 30 days prior to imprisonment Open prisons Closed prisons Lock-ups Pensions 2011 13 December 2012 11 December Inmates taking drugs
n % n % n % n % n % n % Yes 1135 68.4 566 60.9 646 48.8 8 33.3 2355 59.8 2201 58.8 No 509 30.7 348 37.5 613 46.3 15 62.5 1485 37.7 1426 38.1 No wish to dis- close 14 0.8 15 1.6 66 5.0 1.0 4.2 96 2.4 115 3.1 I alt 1658 100 929 100 1325 100 24 100 3936 100 3742 100
Source: Danish Prison and Probation Service 2013, unpublished
Note: The records are based on the inmates’ own information. The figures include prisoners remanded in custody and convicted. For 2.1% of the inmates, no records have been stated on the intake of drugs prior to imprisonment. This group has been excluded from the table.
Table 9.4.2. Drugs taken 30 days prior to imprisonment. The number and proportion of inmates using drugs 2010
18 December 13 December 2011 11 December 2012
Inmates taking drugs n % N % N %
Opioids 572 23.4 468 19.2 417 18.9 Psychostimulants 1533 62.8 1525 62.5 1306 59.3 Cannabis 1681 68.9 1685 69.0 1579 71.7 Alcohol 862 35.3 742 30.4 716 32.5 Benzodiazepines 340 13.9 310 12.7 269 12.2 Hallucinogens 71 2.9 72 2.9 48 2.1 Other 159 6.5 153 6.3 136 6.2
Source: Danish Prison and Probation Service 2013, unpublished
Note: Where the columns add up to more than 100%, this is most likely because an inmate has stated more than one drug
It appears from table 9.4.2 that almost every fifth of those who in 2012 confirmed hav- ing used drugs the past 30 days prior to imprisonment had used opioids, whereas it was every fourth a few years ago. As in 2011, the most preferred drug is still cannabis (almost 3 out of 4 cases) which in 2012 is even increasing compared to the year be- fore, whereas psychostimulants are still at a high level, although a moderate drop was seen compared to 2011 to a little less than 60% in 2012.
9.5 Treatment and prevention in prison
Since 2007, a treatment guarantee in the prisons has been given to the imprisoned drug abusers which are believed to qualify and be motivated for treatment and who, at the time when treatment is applied for, are expected to have at least 3 months left of their sentence. According to the guarantee, all inmates of the target group requesting for treatment should have started treatment within a fortnight. On 1 June 2011, the treatment was expanded to apply to prisoners in custody and prisoners with short-term sentences, which means that all prisoners in the institutions under the Danish Prison and Probation Service are now comprised by the guarantee. Moreover, the deadline of starting treatment within a fortnight still applies.
The treatment includes day treatment where the inmate serves his sentence in the so- called common department with other inmates who are not in treatment, and includes treatment in special wards where all inmates follow the same treatment, isolated from the rest of the inmates.
The treatment guarantee has been observed within the time limit in 82% of the record- ed cases in 2011, which is a decrease of 6% compared to the year before. In almost 3 out of 4 cases, where treatment had not been initiated within the limit of 14 days, it was initiated within one month.
All primary drug treatment programmes under the Prison and Probation Service must follow an accreditation procedure, in which an expert panel assesses whether or not the treatment programme complies with the standards for good treatment. As at 1 Jan- uary 2013, 12 out of 15 primary treatment programs have been awarded accreditation, whereas 3 programs still await the expert panel’s judgement.