Substance Abuse Treatment for Criminal Offenders: An Evidence-Based Guide for Practitioners (Forensic Practice Guidebooks Series)

245 Pages·2003·1.01 MB·English

by  David W. Springer

CONTENTS
Foreword to the Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 2. Assessment and Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 3. Individual Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter 4. Family-Based Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Chapter 5. Group Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Chapter 6. Traditional Treatment Settings and Approaches . . . 113
Chapter 7. Innovative Treatment Settings and Approaches . . . 125
Chapter 8. Treating Dually Diagnosed Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Chapter 9. Monitoring Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Chapter 10. Future Directions for Research and Practice . . . . . . . 175
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
vii
FOREWORD TO THE SERIES
When the American Psychological Association (APA) launched its
Law and Mental Health Professionals book series in 1993, it broke new pub-
lishing ground by offering clinicians comprehensive reviews of the law that
affects them in each jurisdiction. This review of the relevant law is essential
for practitioners so that they can understand how that law controls their
professional practice; specifies situations in which the legal system needs their
assessment, therapeutic, and administrative services; and affects clinical ser-
vices when patients become involved in legal entanglements.
What is not covered in that series is the clinical information that will
help mental health professionals practice ethically and competently in fo-
rensic situations. The APA Law and Public Policy: Psychology and the Social
Sciences book series partially addresses this need by publishing volumes that
consider the science underlying law-related mental health practice. Violent
Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk by Vernon L. Quinsey, Grant T.
Harris, Marnie E. Rice, and Catherine A. Cormier (1998) and Treating Adult
and Juvenile Offenders With Special Needs edited by José B. Ashford, Bruce D.
Sales, and William H. Reid (2000) are excellent examples of this type of
book. Although the information contained in these volumes is critical for
mental health professionals to understand if they plan to provide, or are pro-
viding, forensic services, the volumes tend to be lengthier because of this
series’ concern with scholarly and scientific comprehensiveness.
Experience teaches that clinicians also need guidebooks that will ac-
curately convey, with brevity and clarity, how to participate in the myriad
forensic practice areas. That is the purpose of the Forensic Practice Guide-
books series. Over time, volumes in this series will cover all topics for which
clinicians may be asked to provide services to clients enmeshed in the law
or to provide services to a legal system (e.g., the courts, social services, and
corrections) to aid in the administration of the law. The overarching goal
of the Forensic Practice Guidebooks series is to help clinicians engage in
forensic practice ethically and competently in today’s changing professional
environment.
Bruce D. Sales, PhD, JD
Series Editor
ix
PREFACE
This book emerged out of a book chapter that we initially wrote for
Treating Adult and Juvenile Offenders With Special Needs, edited by José B.
Ashford, Bruce D. Sales, and William H. Reid. When APA series editor
Bruce Sales contacted us about the possibility of developing our chapter into
a book, we accepted with the intent of writing an evidence-based book that
could guide practitioners’ work with adult or juvenile substance-abusing of-
fenders. This entire book rests on the assumption that treatment is an effec-
tive approach to helping substance-abusing offenders.
There is a growing body of literature indicating that substance abuse
treatment can be effective, and more treatment options are available today
than ever before. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has recently launched
a clinical trials network, and within the next few years the number of ran-
domized clinical trials of substance abuse treatment models will increase ex-
ponentially. Advances are being made daily regarding the relationship be-
tween brain chemistry and addictions.
At the same time, it has become clear to us and to many others that we
are not winning the “War on Drugs,” and we probably never will. People
have used and abused psychoactive substances for most of recorded history,
and they are not likely to stop now. One of the most logical alternatives to
the drug war is to provide treatment to any substance abuser who seeks it,
while providing prevention programs that target those who are most vulner-
able.
It is our hope that this book, a compendium of knowledge about sub-
stance abuse treatment, will assist treatment professionals everywhere in
making informed decisions about how to help juvenile and adult offenders
who abuse psychoactive drugs. If just one substance-abusing offender is bet-
ter off because of this book, it will have been worth the effort.
xi
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
It is only through the collective labor of many hands that a book can be
realized. Much thanks and appreciation goes to the team at APA, beginning
with series editor Bruce Sales and acquisitions editor Susan Reynolds. Our
development editor Linda McCarter provided timely encouragement through-
out the process of writing and rewriting just when it was most needed. Spe-
cial thanks also goes to our production editor Rosemary Moulton for guiding
us through the home stretch. We are indebted to the reviewers who took
time out of their busy schedules to wade through earlier drafts of this manu-
script—their thoughtful comments and suggestions had a significant impact
on the finished product. Special thanks goes to Dr. William R. Kelly, of the
University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin), for sharing his expertise with us
on mental health courts.
David W. Springer would like to thank his dean, Barbara W. White, for
providing a climate in which he is able to balance his administrative respon-
sibilities with his scholarly pursuits, and who was kind enough to award him
with a Dean’s Fellowship so that I could immerse myself in writing this book.
He is grateful to his faculty mentor and friend, Allen Rubin, for his sage
advice and guidance, and to all his colleagues at the UT-Austin School of
Social Work who, on a daily basis, create an enriching work environment.
He wouId like to extend a special thanks to his administrative associate Hollee
Ganner who was instrumental in helping him protect his writing days and
keep track of copyright permissions, and to the many graduate students who
conducted endless literature searches. Finally, he is indebted to my wife and
soul mate, Sarah, for her steadfast support, nurturance, and encouragement
of his professional development and personal growth.
C. Aaron McNeece would like to acknowledge his wife Sherri for her
strong support of his scholarly efforts for the past 36 years.
Elizabeth Mayfield Arnold would like to thank her husband David for
his ongoing support and encouragement of her work.
xiii
1
INTRODUCTION
Treatment is an effective approach to helping substance-abusing of-
fenders.1 Over the past few decades, treatment has been used increasingly as
a way of helping this population. Accordingly, this book, written for practi-
tioners working with adult or juvenile substance-abusing offenders, empha-
sizes the available best practices by describing the most effective and com-
monly used interventions and summarizing the corresponding evidence-based
literature. Given the extent of the drug problem and the growing number of
adult and juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems, it is critical that
practitioners, administrators, and policymakers avail themselves of the most
effective interventions available to treat this population.
According to the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP, 2000), overall national crime rates continue to decline while ar-
rests for drug law violations continue to climb, and the rate of incarceration
for drug offenses has reached an all-time high. Almost 1.6 million Ameri-
cans were arrested for drug crimes in 1998, and 60% of all prisoners in the
federal prison system were sentenced for drug offenses (Mumola, 1998). Drug
1Throughout this book, we interchangeably use the term offender with the more generic term client to
refer to substance-abusing adults and juveniles receiving a variety of services across the justice system
spectrum.
3
offenders also accounted for the largest amount of growth in state prison
populations between 1990 and 1998 (Beck & Mumola, 1999).
The extent of the drug problem is far worse than these statistics suggest.
Anyone who is familiar with how the U.S. criminal justice system operates
knows that the crime for which an offender is sentenced does not tell the full
story. Plea bargaining results in many less serious drug charges simply being
dropped. Many offenders are sentenced for a non-drug offense who also have
a substance abuse problem, which may not appear in the official records. The
National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Sys-
tem discovered that in 24 sites in 1998, between 59% and 79% (in Houston
and Philadelphia, respectively) of adult arrestees tested positive for at least
one illicit drug, with marijuana being the most common drug detected (NIJ,
1999). From January to September 2000, between 51% and 79% (in Des
Moines and New York, respectively) of adult male arrestees in 27 sites tested
positive for any “NIDA-5” drug (those illegal drugs offenders most commonly
use according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse2) (NIJ, 2001).
Two things have become increasingly clear in recent years. First, that
from just about any perspective—law enforcement, health care, or general
social functioning—substance abuse is a massive problem confronting
America in the 21st century (cf. NIDA, 1998; RAND Corporation, 1994;
Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). Second, the War on Drugs has done little to re-
solve this problem since President Nixon introduced it in 1971. (It has actu-
ally made the problem worse: It is the largest factor in the growth of the
inmate population, and it has disproportionately criminalized and stigma-
tized large numbers of minorities.)
FAILURE OF THE WAR ON DRUGS
It has become quite clear in recent years that the War on Drugs has not
been successful (McNeece, Bullington, Arnold, & Springer, 2002; Rasmussen
& Benson, 1994). We know that (a) incarceration alone does little to break
the cycle of illegal drug use and crime, (b) offenders sentenced to incarcera-
tion for substance-related offenses exhibit a high rate of recidivism once they
are released (Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project,
1997, p. 8), and (c) drug abuse treatment has been shown to be demonstrably
effective in reducing both drug abuse and drug-related crime (NIDA, 1999c,
pp. 18–19).
Treatment for substance dependence is seen as a key component in
preventing re-offenses. Recent estimates from the National Household Sur-
vey on Drug Abuse and the Uniform Facility Data Set indicate that approxi-
mately 5 million drug users needed immediate treatment in 1998, but only
2Marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, and phencyclidine (PCP).
4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
2.1 million received it (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2000, p. 54).
Even the most conservative estimates indicate that, if we took half of the
present drug intervention–related law enforcement expenditures and redi-
rected them to drug treatment, and even if the number of substance abusers
doubled, we would still be better off from a cost-effectiveness perspective
(McNeece & DiNitto, 1998).
Some states are beginning to realize this. As of this writing, eight states—
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Wash-
ington—have already taken some step toward permitting medicinal mari-
juana use. The Massachusetts legislature is considering restructuring the state’s
drug law to reduce harsh mandatory minimum punishments for first-time
drug offenders, and New York Governor George Pataki has announced plans
to reduce prison terms and provide treatment for nonviolent drug offenders.
Officials in Michigan have already replaced mandatory life sentences with
parole-eligible prison terms for first-time heroin and cocaine offenders, and
nonviolent drug offenders in both Arizona and California receive drug treat-
ment in lieu of jail time.
EXTENT OF THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Drug arrests will continue to guarantee the growth of our rapidly ex-
panding correctional system well into the 21st century. During the past few
decades, a record number of people have been brought under some form of
correctional control in the United States. The number of adult men and
women under the supervision of federal, state, and local correctional authori-
ties rose to a record 6.3 million in 1999, according to the U.S. Department of
Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS; Bonczar & Glaze, 2000). This num-
ber, which represents 3.1% of all adult residents in the United States, or one
in every 32 adults, includes people incarcerated in jails and prisons and those
supervised in the community under probation or parole.3
During the early 1990s, the United States easily surpassed the Soviet
Union and South Africa in incarceration rates, making it the leader among
industrialized nations in the imprisonment of its citizens. At mid-year 2001,
1,965,495 persons were incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails (BJS,
2002), and 1 out of every 113 American men were in a state or federal prison,
more than were serving in the armed forces. In 1999, the highest rate of
incarceration was in Louisiana (1,025 per 100,000 residents) and the lowest
in Vermont (203 per 100,000; Beck, 2000, p. 1). Furthermore, despite the
continuing increase of substance abusers in the nation’s prisons, only 10,186
federal inmates received substance abuse treatment in 1998, from a popula-
tion of 123,041 inmates (Mumola, 1998).
3Jails contain people convicted of minor crimes; prisons house those convicted of serious crimes.
INTRODUCTION 5
The results of the growth in incarceration rates were often not what law
enforcement agencies, the courts, and the legislative bodies who mandated
harsher sentences for drug offenders had anticipated. For example, in Florida
various new penal provisions for drug offenders that were passed in the 1980s
resulted in serious criminal offenders actually serving less time than they had
before, and many violent offenders were released prematurely to increase the
availability of prison beds for nonviolent drug offenders incarcerated under
mandatory sentencing provisions (Rasmussen & Benson, 1994). Although
these trends were halted in the 1990s, they had a marked effect on prison and
nonprison correctional populations at the time and will continue to influ-
ence the correctional system for some time to come.
The drug problem has had an even greater impact on systems for super-
vising nonincarcerated offenders. Currently, about 20% of sentenced per-
sons are actually serving time in prisons or jails; the remaining 80% are in-
volved in some alternative sanction provided under both federal and state
justice systems (Clear, 1995). This increase impacted the total correctional
populations (not just prisons). While the total estimated correctional popu-
lation rose 179% from 1.8 million in 1980 to 5.1 million in 1994, the in-
crease in the parole population was 213%, and for adult probationers the
increase was an astounding 1,565% (BJS, 1995)! Probation and parole
caseloads have continued to increase since 1995, with nearly 4.5 million
adult men and women on probation or parole at the end of 1999, an increase
of about 119,000 during the year. As of December 31, 1999, approximately
3,773,600 adults were under federal, state, or local jurisdiction on probation,
and nearly 713,000 were on parole (Bonczar & Glaze, 2000). Drug- and alco-
hol-related offenses accounted for more than one fourth of the offenses charged
against adult probationers. Drug possession (9.8%) and drug trafficking (9.7%)
accounted for a large proportion of probationers’ offenses. The most com-
mon offense for probationers was driving while intoxicated (16.7%). Among
probationers 45 years old and older, driving while intoxicated accounted for
27.7% of all offenses (BJS, 1997).
Juvenile Offenders
A similar trend is noted in juvenile offenses. In 1995, juvenile courts in
the United States handled an estimated 159,100 delinquency cases involv-
ing drug law violations. Drug offenses accounted for 9% of all delinquency
cases in 1995, compared with 5% in 1991. Drug offenses include possession
or sale of marijuana, cocaine, and other illegal drugs (Stahl, 1998). These
figures include only cases in which a drug offense was the most serious charge,
not cases involving juveniles charged with drug offenses in addition to more
serious offenses. As is the case with the adult statistics, we can assume that
many more juveniles who were not charged with drug offenses did, indeed,
have a substance abuse problem.
6 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
The number of juvenile drug offense cases processed by the courts dur-
ing 1995 was 28% greater than in 1994 and 145% more than in 1991. Juve-
nile courts experienced a decline in their drug offense caseloads from 1988 to
1991 but then saw a sharp increase from 1991 to 1995. The number of juve-
nile arrests involving drug offenses followed a similar pattern as juvenile court
dispositions (Stahl, 1998). Between 1991 and 1999, juvenile drug arrests in-
creased 132%, while violent crime and property offenses by juveniles de-
creased substantially (H. Snyder, 2000). The total number of substance abuse
arrests for juveniles in 1999 was substantial (385,8000); of those, 198,400
were for drug abuse, 165,700 for liquor law violations, and 21,700 for drunk-
enness (H. Snyder, 2000).
The number of juveniles placed on probation grew by 48% between
1988 and 1997. In 1997, 55% of total juvenile cases were placed on proba-
tion; 56% of adjudicated juvenile drug offenders were placed on probation
(Scahill, 2000). There is no reliable estimate regarding the proportion of
these juveniles (either incarcerated or on probation) who were referred to
treatment or who actually received treatment.
Female Offenders
The number of women incarcerated in the United States tripled in the
1980s alone. In the 15 years from 1980 to mid-1995, the number of women
incarcerated in U.S. prisons rose by 460%! The same pattern is evident with
the jail population: More than three times as many women were in jail in
mid-1997 as in mid-1985, according to 1998 BJS data (as cited in Kassebaum,
1999). Most of the women entering our criminal justice system are younger
than 40 years old, and 8 of every 10 are mothers (Kassebaum, 1999). In 1997,
about three quarters (74%) of women in federal and 35% in state prisons had
been sentenced to prison for a drug crime (Mumola, 2000). Women’s involve-
ment in drug crime is typically low-level dealing or delivery activity, although
10% of federal and 15% of state female inmates have been incarcerated for
possession (Mumola, 2000). Low socioeconomic status partly explains why some
non-using women sell drugs (Radosh, 2002). Greenfield and Snell (1999) re-
ported that, of those women incarcerated during the 1990s, only 40% indi-
cated that they had been employed during the months prior to their arrest, and
30% had been receiving welfare benefits (as cited in Radosh, 2002).
EFFECTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
Our position throughout this book is that treatment is more effective
than any other approach that we can take with both juvenile and adult sub-
stance-abusing offenders. One of the main issues of contention among prac-
titioners and researchers who work with substance abusers has been an op-
erational definition of the term effective treatment.
INTRODUCTION 7