Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment and Criminal Justice Supervision

Abstract

Proponents of a pure public safety perspective on the drug problem hold that drug-involved offenders require consistent and intensive supervision by criminal justice authorities in order to stay off drugs and out of trouble. In contrast, proponents of a thoroughgoing public health perspective commonly argue that clients perform better if they are left alone to develop an effective therapeutic alliance with counselors. Both may be correct, but with respect to different groups of offenders. One approach has shown consistent promise for reducing drug use and criminal recidivism: an integrated public health-public safety strategy that combines community-based drug abuse treatment with ongoing criminal justice supervision. This article presents promising findings from programs implementing this strategy and discusses best treatment practices to meet the needs of both low-risk and high-risk clients.

Transferability of the Anchorage Wellness Court Model

“…Other treatment interventions, such as insight and group-process interventions and educational and drug-awareness sessions may serve to increase drug use and recidivism or have no effect (Marlowe, 2003). One randomized study of alcohol-specific treatment regimens, including CBT, motivational enhancement therapy, and facilitated twelve-step treatment, found that treatment was effective, and that no one treatment modality was superior.…”

“…One focus-group study noted that participants reported forming close relationships with their case managers -sometimes too close (Farole & Cissner, 2005). Research on the effect of case management on other drug offenders suggests that the effects of case management are variable and depend on how well programs carry out their responsibilities (Marlowe, 2003). Research on probationers and parolees with drug conditions suggests that increased drug testing and immediate sanctions for use significantly reduced the likelihood of arrest (Harrell, Roman, Bhati, & Parthasarathy, 2003).…”

Medication assisted treatment in US drug courts: Results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers and attitudes

“…A 2004 Department of Justice survey reported that 53% of state and 45% of federal prisoners met DSM-IV criteria for a drug use disorder (Mumola and Karberg, 2006). Approximately onethird of inmates resume substance abuse within the first two months of their release, and 95% of those incarcerated for drug crimes return to drug use within three years of their release (Marlowe, 2003). An estimated 20% of prison inmates have a history of injection drug use, and approximately 24-36% of all heroin addicts, or over 200,000 individuals, pass through the US criminal justice system each year (Rich et al, 2005).…”

“…In the US, drug treatment courts (drug courts), have become increasingly popular as a means of diverting non-violent drug offenders away from jails and prisons into more treatmentoriented settings (Brown, 2010;Chandler et al, 2009;Kushel et al, 2005;Marlowe, 2003). People who have drug problems and have been arrested for either a drug-related (or in some cases an unrelated) offense may be eligible to enter a drug court program, which typically follows the individual for 12 to 18 months.…”

“…The effectiveness of drug court programs varies by court location, but aggregated data suggest drug courts help reduce crime and illicit drug use (Aos et al, 2006;Lowencamp et al, 2005;Shaffer, 2006Shaffer, , 2011. Recidivism among drug court participants is estimated to be 8 to 26% lower than for other criminal justice dispositions (Carey et al, 2008), and is achieved both by decreasing drug use and increasing time until re-arrest (Marlowe, 2003;Brown, 2010).…”