Abstract:Over the last decade, there has been a sharp increase in drug addiction in Mexico, especially among the urban poor. During the same period, unregulated residential treatment centers for addiction, known as anexos, have proliferated throughout the country. These centers are utilized and run by marginalized populations and are widely known to engage in physical violence. Based on long-term ethnographic research in Mexico City, this article describes why anexos emerged, how they work, and what their prevalence an… Show more
“…54,56–58 This scale up of evidence-based biomedical and harm reduction interventions is occurring despite China’s previous investment in a compulsory treatment infrastructure; as such, tensions remain between voluntary, public health-oriented approaches and compulsory detainment, 59 as they do in settings that include both compulsory and voluntary approaches, such as Mexico. 60,61 This may result in suboptimal treatment outcomes given that ongoing interactions with law enforcement and the threat of detainment within compulsory drug detention centers may cause drug-dependent individuals to avoid harm reduction services or engage in risky drug-using behaviors out of a fear of being targeted by police, 59 as has been observed in a range of settings. 62–66 We also note that this is likely the case in settings seeking to control the harms of non-opioid substance use disorders such as cocaine use disorder, given that available interventions that have been shown to be effective have been undertaken using voluntary treatment approaches.…”
Background
Despite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the outcomes of compulsory treatment. We conducted a search in duplicate of all relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating compulsory treatment modalities. The following academic databases were searched: PubMed, PAIS International, Proquest, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Soc Abstracts, JSTOR, EBSCO/Academic Search Complete, REDALYC, SciELO Brazil. We also searched the Internet, and article reference lists, from database inception to July 15th, 2015. Eligibility criteria are as follows: peer-reviewed scientific studies presenting original data. Primary outcome of interest was post-treatment drug use. Secondary outcome of interest was post-treatment criminal recidivism.
Results
Of an initial 430 potential studies identified, nine quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated compulsory treatment options including drug detention facilities, short (i.e. 21-day) and long-term (i.e., 6 months) inpatient treatment, community-based treatment, group-based outpatient treatment, and prison-based treatment. Three studies (33%) reported no significant impacts of compulsory treatment compared with control interventions. Two studies (22%) found equivocal results but did not compare against a control condition. Two studies (22%) observed negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism. Two studies (22%) observed positive impacts of compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism and drug use.
Conclusion
There is limited scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment. Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.
“…54,56–58 This scale up of evidence-based biomedical and harm reduction interventions is occurring despite China’s previous investment in a compulsory treatment infrastructure; as such, tensions remain between voluntary, public health-oriented approaches and compulsory detainment, 59 as they do in settings that include both compulsory and voluntary approaches, such as Mexico. 60,61 This may result in suboptimal treatment outcomes given that ongoing interactions with law enforcement and the threat of detainment within compulsory drug detention centers may cause drug-dependent individuals to avoid harm reduction services or engage in risky drug-using behaviors out of a fear of being targeted by police, 59 as has been observed in a range of settings. 62–66 We also note that this is likely the case in settings seeking to control the harms of non-opioid substance use disorders such as cocaine use disorder, given that available interventions that have been shown to be effective have been undertaken using voluntary treatment approaches.…”
Background
Despite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the outcomes of compulsory treatment. We conducted a search in duplicate of all relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating compulsory treatment modalities. The following academic databases were searched: PubMed, PAIS International, Proquest, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Soc Abstracts, JSTOR, EBSCO/Academic Search Complete, REDALYC, SciELO Brazil. We also searched the Internet, and article reference lists, from database inception to July 15th, 2015. Eligibility criteria are as follows: peer-reviewed scientific studies presenting original data. Primary outcome of interest was post-treatment drug use. Secondary outcome of interest was post-treatment criminal recidivism.
Results
Of an initial 430 potential studies identified, nine quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated compulsory treatment options including drug detention facilities, short (i.e. 21-day) and long-term (i.e., 6 months) inpatient treatment, community-based treatment, group-based outpatient treatment, and prison-based treatment. Three studies (33%) reported no significant impacts of compulsory treatment compared with control interventions. Two studies (22%) found equivocal results but did not compare against a control condition. Two studies (22%) observed negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism. Two studies (22%) observed positive impacts of compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism and drug use.
Conclusion
There is limited scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment. Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.
“…It is possible that these ethnic groups have developed their own recovery support systems within their communities and are simply not a part of the Sober Living Network. For example, anexos , mutual-help recovery programs that provide structured daily routines, peer support, and daily Spanish-language Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings that incorporate cultural elements from AA in Mexico (Garcia, 2015) are known to operate in Los Angeles (A. Pagano, personal communication, February 16, 2016). The experiences of these minority groups in SLHs and potential barriers to opening SLHs in neighborhoods with high concentrations of these groups warrant further study.…”
Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol and drug-free living environments for individuals in recovery. The goal of this study was to map the distribution of SLHs in Los Angeles (LA) County, California (N=260) and examine neighborhood correlates of SLH density. Locations of SLHs were geocoded and linked to tract-level Census data as well as to publicly available information on alcohol outlets and recovery resources. Neighborhoods with SLHs differed from neighborhoods without them on measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and accessibility of recovery resources. In multivariate, spatially-lagged hurdle models stratified by monthly fees charged (less than $1400/month vs. $1400/month or greater), minority composition and accessibility of treatment were associated with the presence of affordable SLHs. Accessibility of treatment was also associated with the number of affordable SLHs in those neighborhoods. Higher median housing value and accessibility of treatment were associated with whether a neighborhood had high-cost SLHs, and lower population density was associated with the number of high-cost SLHs in those neighborhoods. Neighborhood factors are associated with the availability of SLHs, and research is needed to better understand how these factors affect resident outcomes, as well as how SLHs may affect neighborhoods over time.
“…While there are some studies of anexos in Mexico (Garcia, 2015; Marín-Navarrete, Eliosa-Hernández, Lozano-Verduzco, Turnbull, & Tena-Suck, 2013; Rosovsky, 2009), and of non-anexo AA modalities utilized by Latino migrants in the U.S. (Anderson & Garcia, 2015; Garcia, Anderson, & Humphreys, 2015; Gordon, 1981), the present study is the first multi-year ethnographic study of U.S.-based anexos.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…A qualitative study of Mexican men’s experiences in anexos revealed accounts of forced internment, rape, beatings, being made to sit for hours with one’s hands extended, and being required to eat from the same bowl that functioned as a toilet (Lozano-Verduzco, Marín-Navarrete, Romero-Mendoza, & Tena-Suck, 2016). Another study of anexos in Mexico City reported punitive practices such as residents being made to kneel on bottle caps or hold heavy weights for hours; being deprived of sleep and food; being kicked, punched, and cut; and having cigarettes extinguished on their backs (García, 2015). In 2013, an anexo in Tijuana was accused of allowing sexual abuse of women residents (Betanzos, 2013).…”
Background
Anexos are community-based recovery houses that were created in Mexico to serve people struggling with addiction to alcohol and other drugs. Brought to the U.S. by Mexican migrants, anexos provide residential care to primarily male Latino migrants and immigrants who are unable or unwilling to access formal treatment. While some Mexican anexos have come under fire for coercion, confrontational treatment methods, and corporal punishment, little is known about treatment practices in U.S. anexos.
Methods
We conducted a two-year ethnographic study of three anexos in urban Northern California. The study included over 150 hours of participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 42 residents, 3 directors, 2 assistant directors, and 3 former directors (N = 50). Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using ATLAS.ti software.
Results
The anexos in our study differed in important ways from Mexican anexos described in the scientific literature. First, we found no evidence of corporal punishment or coercive internment. Second, the anexos were open, allowing residents to leave the premises for work and other approved activities. Third, the anexos were self-supported through residents’ financial contributions. Fourth, collective decision-making processes observed in the California anexos more closely resembled sober living houses than their authoritarian counterparts in Mexico.
Conclusion
Anexos may operate differently in the U.S. versus Mexico due to variations in sociopolitical context. This exploratory study suggests that anexos are addressing unmet need for addiction treatment in U.S. Latino immigrant and migrant communities. As a community-created, self-sustained, culturally appropriate recovery resource, anexos provide important insights into Latino migrants’ and immigrants’ experiences with substance abuse, help-seeking trajectories, and treatment needs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.