Treatment of Substance Abusers

Introduction

ˇ   Substance abuse has long been associated with violence and criminal behavior.

ˇ   80% of offenders were intoxicated during their assaultive crimes (Mayfield, 1976).

ˇ   68% tested positive for one or more illicit drugs at the time of their arrest in 1996.

 

Introduction

ˇ   Substance abuse assessments help to identify an offender’s treatment needs,

ˇ   Can be matched with an appropriate treatment and release risk management strategy.

Introduction

ˇ    The increasingly large amount of drug abusing inmates in today's criminal justice system requires an expansion of drug treatment programs.

ˇ    The combination of these increasing numbers of substance abusers with institutional cutbacks force decisions to be made in regards to which inmates will receive treatment (Peters, 1992).

ˇ    In order to make such valid treatment decisions appropriate assessments must be carried out

 

 

Introduction

ˇ    Approximately 94 percent of Federal prisons, 56 percent of State prisons, and 33 percent of jails provided on-site substance abuse treatment to inmates

ˇ    The most common type of substance abuse treatment reported was treatment for patients remaining in the general inmate population rather than residing in treatment units apart from other inmates.

ˇ    Nearly 84% of facilities with treatment reported this type of treatment 

Introduction

ˇ    Almost 70% of the inmates in treatment were treated in the general facility population.

ˇ    About 28% of the inmates in treatment were in specialized substance abuse treatment units

ˇ    2% were in hospital inpatient treatment units

ˇ    Private organizations operated 22% of the substance abuse treatment programs in state prisons, 21% of the treatment programs in jails, and 52% of the treatment programs in juvenile facilities

 

Assessment

ˇ   Currently correctional substance abuse assessment techniques have many problems that effect the validity of evaluations:

l   Contextual concerns

l   Issues with valid populations

l   Instrument design problems

 

Assessment

ˇ    Brochu and Levesque (1990) recommend that an ideal substance abuse assessment instrument for a correctional context consists of evaluations of:

l    (1) the sequence between alcohol and drug use and first criminal activity

l    (2) family history of alcohol and drug abuse

l    (3) reasons for alcohol/drug use

l    (4) reasons for criminal behavior

l    (5) previous treatments for abuse

l    (6) the willingness and ability towards change

 

Assessment Instruments

ˇ   Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA).

ˇ   315-item CASA Identifies critical substance abuse related static and dynamic factors and their link to criminal offending.

ˇ  Assess the reliability of self-report using the Paulhus Deception Scale

ˇ  Identify topography and density of alcohol and drug use

Assessment Instruments

ˇ  Assess severity and consequences of drug and alcohol abuse using the following measures:

l   Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)
l   Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS)
l   Problems Related to Drinking (PRD)
l   Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS)
l   Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST)

ˇ  Identify poly-substance use

ˇ  Family History of substance use

ˇ  Identify prior programming involvement including Methadone Maintenance Treatment

ˇ  Assess treatment readiness

ˇ  Recommend program intensity levels

ˇ  Generate automated summary reports to assist decision makers

 

Residential Facilities

ˇ    Substance abuse treatment programs within state and local correctional and detention facilities

ˇ    Prisoners are incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to permit substance abuse treatment.

ˇ     Goal is to reduce recidivism by implementing programs that provide individual and group treatment activities for offenders in residential facilities operated by the state.

Residential Facilities

ˇ   These programs must:

l   Last between 6 and 12 months

l   Be provided in a residential treatment facility set apart from general correctional population

l   Focus on the substance abuse problems of the inmate

l   Develop the inmate's cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills to solve the substance abuse and related problems

 

Residential Programs

ˇ    As of January 2000, NIJ had awarded 18 individual site outcome evaluations.

ˇ    Compare RSAT program participants with nonparticipating inmates on such measures as rearrest rates, participation in aftercare, mental health status, and employment.

ˇ    Too early to draw definitive conclusions about RSAT

 

 

Drug Courts

ˇ    Started in the late 1980s

ˇ      Started in response to rising rates of drug-related court cases and the inability of traditional law enforcement and justice policies to reduce the supply and demand for illegal drugs.

ˇ    Increase in drug offenders accounted for nearly 3/4ths of the growth in prison populations between 1985 and 1995.

Drug Courts

ˇ    The first drug court was created in Miami in 1989.

ˇ      promising results, especially in terms of reduced recidivism.

ˇ    Drug courts now exist in all 50 states, by 2000 there were more than 700 U.S. courts in existence

ˇ      Focus on facilitating treatment for first time and misdemeanor drug-involved criminal justice populations.

Drug Courts

ˇ    Designed to deal with non-violent offenders who are offered an opportunity to complete a drug treatment program in return for:

l    a dismissal of charges (diversion or pre-sentencing model) or

l    reduction in custody or probation time (post-sentence model)

ˇ    generally exclude individuals charged with drug trafficking

 

Drug Courts

ˇ    Drug courts combine:

l    Intense judicial supervision

l    Comprehensive substance abuse treatment (including detoxification)

l    Random and frequent drug testing

l    Incentives and sanctions

l    Clinical case management

ˇ    The over-riding goal of the drug court is abstinence and law-abiding behavior.

Drug Courts

ˇ    Evidence suggests that drug courts may offer a less costly alternative to incarceration.

ˇ    Significantly reduce jail and prosecution expenditures when defendants are successfully diverted from the traditional court and correction systems.

ˇ      In 1998, drug courts cost about $2,000 (USD) annually pp, compared to $20,000 - $50,000 pp for incarceration.

Drug Courts

 

ˇ    To date, approximately 200,000 persons have entered U.S. drug courts (including 140,000 graduates or current participants)

ˇ    A recent review of 30 evaluations concluded:

l    Drug courts are able to engage and retain offenders.

l    Among adults, 60% remain in treatment after one year; almost double the retention rate for community-based programs.

Drug Courts

l   Provide more comprehensive and closer supervision than community programs.

l   Most (55%) require at least 2 drug tests per week.

l   In the majority of programs (74%) status hearings are held bi-weekly

l   Nearly all courts (88%) have weekly contact with treatment providers.

 

 

Drug Courts

l   Drug use and criminal behavior is substantially reduced during and up to one year following participation.

l   Drug courts generate cost savings, at least in the short term, from reductions in jail time and prison use, court and other justice system costs, and reduced criminality.

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Methadone is a synthetic narcotic analgesic.

ˇ    Derived from opium

ˇ    Used for treatment of heroin addiction

ˇ    Pioneered by Vincent Dole and Marie Nyswander in the 1960s - had a theory that heroin addicts developed a biological adaptation to opiates such that they needed them to maintain some level of opiate in their body to feel “normal.”

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Hypothesized that heroin addicts, even after withdrawal, would never feel “normal” unless they resumed having some level of opiate in their system.

ˇ    Developed as a substitute for heroin, and was intended as a maintenance medication, much as insulin is used to treat diabetes

ˇ    Methadone has a longer half-life than heroin and only needs to be taken once a day, usually orally.

 

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Methadone is not an exact substitute for heroin

ˇ    Analgesic effect is far less strong than that of heroin

ˇ    Competes with heroin for access to sites of action in the brain

ˇ    If methadone is present in a sufficiently high dose, it will occupy many of the sites of action, and if heroin is consumed the heroin will have little effect

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Typically methadone treatment is accompanied by behavioral counseling

ˇ    Methadone found to be extremely effective in certain regards:

l    Reduces users' consumption of illicit drugs

l    Reduces criminal activity

l    More socially productive

l    More psychologically stable

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Treatment surrounded by moral debate

ˇ    Much of the public considers it reprehensible to offer heroin addicts a medically prescribed substitute drug

ˇ    Major problems:

l    Given less than therapeutic dose (60 mg)

l    Methadone withdrawal versus maintenance

l    Not allowed in many prisons

Methadone Programs

ˇ    Relapse rates for methadone withdrawal is 90%

ˇ    Early studies for methadone found relapse rates on the order of 85%.

ˇ    Later studies found individuals who have become socially stable, probability of successful detoxification is high

ˇ    83% who met these criteria were drug free over a follow-up period averaging slightly over two years

 

Methadone Programs

ˇ   individuals who did not meet these criteria, only 14% to 21% were drug free.

ˇ   only 17% of all patients met the criteria (social stability)

ˇ   Thoughts????

ˇ   Also Antibuse/Temposil

Cognitive Behavioral Programs

ˇ   Psychoeducation about substance Abuse

ˇ   Problem Solving Skills

ˇ   Decision Making Skills

ˇ   Social/Communication Skills

ˇ   Developing Alternative Methods Seminar (DAM)

12-Step Programs

1. Admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable.  

 

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

 

3.  Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

 

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

 

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

 

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

 

12-Step Programs

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

 

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

 

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

 

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

 

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

 

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.