Best Practices in Substance Abuse Treatment for Offenders by Pearce and Holbrook - Research Paper Example

Best Practices In Substance Abuse Treatment For Offenders. Name of Student Student Number Submission Date Word Count: 1,630 Over the years, research has been conducted to establish the best practice(s) in treatment of offenders in substance abuse. This paper will review Pearce & Holbrook (2002) paper on “Research findings and best practices in substance abuse treatment for offenders. The structure of the paper will follow: Purpose of the study, theories of drug abuse treatment used, research participants, methodology, i.e. data gathering procedures and respective model findings. It will also look at its contribution to the general topic, limitations and how they can be addressed in future research in addition to evaluation of the limitations and strengths of the research before finally concluding. This review uses terms that shall be referenced as they are used. The major findings of the paper concluded that there is no single effective programme that can be applied to the (AOD Alcohol and other drug involved offenders’ rehabilitation. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings and best practices in treatment of substance and drug abuse by offenders. Theories of drug abuse treatment There are two main theories of drug treatment used by the researchers that are either applied as single models or in combined form. The disease theory proposes drug abuse and addiction to be a primary illness chronic in nature and described in three parts: physical, spiritual and mental. It is based on teaching the addicts coping skills for the illness throughout life by abstaining from them. The second theory, Social learning theory by Albert Bandura, holds that drug addiction can be treated by teaching and reinforcing acceptable pro-social behavior. Offenders learn drug abuse from the social arena which is later reinforced by the benefits derived from it such as pleasure and euphoric feelings. Treatments based on this model include reducing the availability of substances through restricted access, interdiction, and treatment (Parks et al., 1999). Research participants The research participants in these researches were mainly (AOD offenders from correctional facilities: prison and jails in areas where the particular studies were carried out such as Texas, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and California. The population comprised both males and females of both high and low risk offences out of prison with varied duration from release date and in others in prison. Methodology The researches employed different tools and instruments in collecting data. Screening, assessment and individual treatment planning was used where individuals were screened and assessed before being placed in the programs. Screening is the initial activity that identifies offenders likely to be having AOD problems whereas assessment is a process that helps determine an individual’s problem with alcohol and other drugs and appropriate level of treatment (Pearce & Holbrook 2002). This is aimed at collecting information on the particular services to be offered for the offender to cope with the societal challenges. Screening instruments included: The drug use section of the addiction severity index, Alcohol Dependence scale, the simple screening instrument and the Texas Christian University Drug dependence screen. The assessment tools included Offender profile index used for establishing the best AOD treatment for the victim. The Addiction severity index is the widely used standardized field diagnostic tool. After diagnosing the problem, the individuals were referred for specific case management. There are various case management models – case management provided by the justice system, case management provided by the treatment system, case management provided by a separate entity from the treatment or justice systems, and case management provided by multidisciplinary groups in the criminal justice system for offender management (CSAT, 1995). The treatment programs used vary in modality, setting, intensity and duration of stay. The three programmatic models for substance abuse treatment for offenders used are the Minnesota model (12-step), therapeutic community, and cognitive behavior therapy (Bryant et al., 2000). The participants categorized as either treatment group, drop out group or control are then evaluated and compared to establish which model works best according to results basing on recidivism (re-arrest rate) indicated by findings as follows. Summary of findings Findings from these researches were different since no single program proved to be more effective than the other. Both the prison based and the community based models showed closely related margins of success on reduced recidivism rates based on number of subjects. Prison based treatment models In prison based treatment it was found that arrest rates for the treatment group reduced greatly in comparison to those out of the programme (Lipton 1996) report. Butzin et al. conducted a research in Delaware CREST outreach center, involving community prison inmates with substance abuse records in a six month community based therapy. The recidivism rates following an18 month release and subsequent follow up indicated 30% for CREST completers, 52% for CREST non-completers and 57% for the comparison group indicating the programs minimal success margin. Simpson & Knight (1997), research with Texas in prison TC (Therapeutic community) treatment model with Texas Christian University’s institute of behavior research involving a 12 month after prison release follow up indicated those who completed the TC aftercare had a lower recidivism rate of 18% compared to 29% for TC non completers and 33% for the untreated group. In subsequent evaluations done by Wexler between 1992 and 1997 of the Richard Donovan Correctional facility program on drug abuse program based in California and the Forever Free programme in California with the California institution for women indicate the same margin of success for these prison based programs. Community based treatment models Different community based interventions produced related results in rehabilitating the victims. TASC (Treatment alternative to street Crime) program indicated TASC participants remaining in treatment longer than non TASC participants which impacted positively in the outcomes (Hubbard 1988). Lightfoot(1988) report covering the 1993 Multiple Offender Alcoholism Program which incorporated an individual based cognitive treatment plan on behavior aimed at reducing alcohol related crimes indicated fewer cases of criminal activity on active participants (61% decrease). Positive social behavior was also recorded during participation. According to another research conducted by Taxman (1998) using the HIDTA project found that 12% of the offenders committed crimes again in the 9 month they were in the community. This was a lower margin compared to their crime history. Other subsequent research such Kennedy (1999) Breaking the cycle project from 1996 in Birmingham, Florida, Washington Tacoma and Oregon posted the same results showing achievement of the BTC program. Contribution of the research to the general topic Research on the best practices in rehabilitating offenders in drug abuse is very instrumental in solving life’s problems associated with drug dependence that lead to criminal behavior. Knowledge about the different models used by the researchers is essential in giving direction to more researches that will follow and it is through the small leaps of improvement in the research field that a more elaborate and effective models shall develop to address the issue once and for all. The police department and other correctional departments in criminology are bound to benefit from such researches since escalating crime rates are bound to reduce significantly. Consequently the community in general shall stand to benefit from the reduced criminal activity to uplift the living standards. Limitations of the studies Despite the success margins associated with these studies, a number of setbacks were present. The number of subjects used dropped significantly due to drop outs which affected the sample and consequently the validity and reliability of the research findings. Another limitation to the studies was lack of enough empirical data to draw comparison from on the specific programs used since they have been applied very few times to come up with comprehensive tracking on the programs. MacKenzie & Hickman (1998). There is no enough research on community-based outpatient programs without in-prison treatment to draw any conclusions. In addition, some specific case of prison based treatment models used, hindered the acquisition of reliable results considering that the assessment was being done while they are in prison, it is most likely that the prison community can influence them to act otherwise to compromise the program. Lastly, some studies do not follow up whenever a relapse occurs thus vital data from which inferences could be drawn is lost. Addressing limitations in future In future researches in this field, it is recommended that certain measures be put in place to deal with the limitations. Active support systems should play their part in retaining the participants in the research to minimize drop outs. Future research should be focused on outside prison based treatments to avoid prison environment influencing the subjects. A follow up on inmate’s activities following their release should be conducted to gather more information on the subject’s activities that can better explain their relapse in addressing it better. Relapse and recidivism are significantly lower if inmates continue with treatment in the community following release (Harrel, 2001). Comparing strengths and weaknesses The strengths outweigh the weaknesses of the researches. This is explained basing on the instruments and tools used in data collection. Screening instruments recommended by researchers for criminal justice populations include the Alcohol Dependence Scale and the Drug Use section of the Addiction Severity Index, the Texas Christian University Drug Dependence Screen, and the Simple Screening Instrument. They found these instruments to be superior (Bryant et al., 2000). The approved validity and reliability of these instrument and their previous results in comparison to the weaknesses which can be eliminated, proves the strengths to outdo the weaknesses. Conclusion Basing on the researches findings, it was concluded that no single intervention whether community or prison based is effective in addressing the issue of drug abuse treatment to offenders. Hence in reiterating the main purpose of this paper, there is no practice that qualifies as best in substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders. The different models must be incorporated to run alternately since all practices show considerably same success margin. References Andrews, A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 17, 19-52. Anglin, M.D., & Hser, Y. (1991). Treatment of Drug Abuse. In Tonry, M. & Wilson, J. (eds.), Drugs and Crime. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bryant, J., Etheridge, R., &Hubbard, L. (2000). Process Evaluation Of The RSAT State Alliance For Recovery and General Education (SARGE) Program, Draft Report. Butzin, C. A., Scarpitti, F., Nielsen, L., Martin, S., & Inciardi., J. (1999). Measuring the Impact of Drug Treatment; Beyond Relapse and Recidivism. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3 (4), pp. 1-7. CSAT (1995). Planning for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Harrell, A. (2001). The Impact of Jacksonville’s breaking the Cycle Demonstration on Drug Use and Crime: Findings from Offender Interviews. Urban Institute Report. Hubbard, R., Collins, J., Rachal, V., & Cavanaugh, R. (1988). The Criminal Justice Client in Drug Abuse Treatment. In C.G. Leukefel and F.M. Tims (eds.), Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice. Research Monograph Series 86. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Kennedy, S. (1999) The BTC Review, Issue 2. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Lightfoot, L., & Hodgins, D. (1988). A survey of Alcohol and Drug Problems in Incarcerated Candian Offenders. International Journal of the Addictions. 23 (7), 687-706. MacKenzie, D., & Hickman, L. (1998). What Works in Corrections? An Examination of the Effectiveness of the Type of Rehabilitation Programs Offered by Washington State Department of Corrections. University of Maryland. Parks, G., & Marlatt, A. (1999), Keeping “What Works” Working: Cognitive Behavioral Relapse Prevention Therapy with Substance Abusing Offenders. In Latessa (ed) Strategic Solutions: The International Community Corrections Association Examines Substance Abuse. American Correctional Association. Pearce, S., & Holbrook, D. (2002) Research Findings And Best Practices In Substance Abuse Treatment For Offenders. North Carolina Department of Correction Substance Abuse Advisory Council Simpson, D., Knight, L. (1997). Research Focus of the IBR at TCU. Research Summary, Special Issue April, 1997. Taxman, F. (1998). Reducing Recidivism Through a Seamless System of Care: Components of Effective Treatment, Supervision, and Transition Services in the Community. Office of National Drug Control Policy Conference. Washington, D.C. Read More