Substance Abuse Treatment in Community Corrections

Introduction: Culture, Gender, and Substance Abuse Treatment

One of the newest developments in research literature that has gained wide acceptance in recent years is the idea that substance abuse treatment is more effective when competent issues such as culture and gender-specific considerations are taken into account. VanderWaal et al. (2001), for instance, argue that consideration of ethnicity and culture is vital for the treatment of young addicts and offenders. Juvenile drug courts are also considering the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of young offenders for effective rehabilitation and treatment (Drug Court Clearinghouse, 1997).

As a matter of tradition, gender-based issues were never considered in the juvenile justice system, and female juveniles were expected to fit into programs designed for delinquent boys. This was revised after research indicated that girls were more difficult to work with than delinquent boys (Covington, 1988; Bloom and Covington, 2001). The reason behind this may be that in most cases, delinquent girls were three times more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than boys. Approximately 70% of girls in correctional facilities have been sexually abused, making their correction and rehabilitation particularly complex (Green et al., 1998).

The early 1990s saw an increase in the arrests, delinquency, and incarcerations of girls relative to boys (Prescott, 1997). Part of this tendency was attributable to a higher probability of girls being arrested for less violent crimes than boys, with detention lasting up to about five times longer than for boys (Bloom and Covington, 2001). Girls were also observed to be more likely to commit offenses related to substance abuse and to be arrested (Covington, 1998). Research also observed that women in therapeutic centers lowered their use of amphetamines and heroin at follow-up but abused more marijuana and cocaine than women in the control group in prisons. A Federal Bureau of Prisons study of 547 women found that therapeutic center treatment proved ineffective in reducing relapse or recidivism.

Farrell (2000) researched 41 women undergoing a therapeutic center program who were transitioning into a community setting and compared them to 37 women who had been in work release programs. He found that the therapeutic center women showed a lower rate of alcohol relapse but not for other hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin. The therapeutic center groups found it easier to obtain social support from their communities but were less likely to hold down jobs, care for their children, or maintain meaningful relationships with members of society outside the support network program.

Women in both groups reported feeling discriminated against by the larger community. While there was no difference in the rate of drug recidivism between the groups, responsibility for their children was a significant predictor of staying out of trouble for women in either group. However, no information was available as to whether the therapeutic center program provided gender-specific programming, such as attention paid to earlier abusive experiences. Schinka et al. (1999) reported on changes in moods and personality characteristics in women admitted to therapeutic centers; one year later, the women reported fewer depression tendencies and were less avoidant, dependent, and self-defeating. However, therapeutic treatment had no effect on their antisocial behavior.

Community Corrections: Definition and Structure

Strickland et al. (2008) assert that community correction is a general term that includes everything from pre-trial diversion to intermediate punishment. This definition includes any non-incarcerative but well-supervised manner of dealing with individuals who are facing conviction in the justice system or who have already been convicted to serve their terms. Parole and probation are the most widely utilized forms of community corrections, but the term may also encompass electronic monitoring, home confinement, work release, day fine programs, curfews, halfway houses, community services, restitution, community-based correctional facilities, and more. A correction facility qualifies as community-based when the state provides funding and operation is carried out by local communities. Community programs provide residential sessions that are intermediate at the system's end, existing between prison and probation terms.

Community Corrections in Ohio describes a system of specific facilities used to provide both residential and non-residential services to convicted offenders. These facilities receive state funds but are based in and operated by local communities. These programs provide an intermediate residential sanction at the front end of the system between probation and custodial sentence — called diversion — and re-integration services at the back end between parole and prison, often called transition (Burrell and English, 2006).

Drug Treatment Effectiveness and Coercive Programs

Volkow (2008) states that studies consistently confirm that drug treatment works through a multi-pronged approach: apart from reducing drug use, treatment also suppresses criminal behavior and recidivism. For drug-abusing persons who undergo treatment, it facilitates successful reentry into society.

Grella et al. (1999) assert that women in the criminal justice system have very different relationship patterns compared to women who are free. They are much more likely to be single, at a rate of approximately 46%. About 20% are currently married and about a third are either separated or divorced. However, about 70% of these women have at least one minor child, and most usually retain custody of their children during incarceration. When a father is incarcerated, the mother takes care of the children approximately 90% of the time, leading to little disruption in the normal upbringing of the child.

The relationship between drug use and crime has driven many state and federal governments to implement coercive treatment programs within the United States. The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have been staunch supporters of coercive treatments since the mid-1970s, largely because of the established connection between drugs and crime. The prevalence of drugs in communities enhances criminal careers. A review of correctional facilities reveals that 83% of state prisoners had previous records of drug abuse, and 57% reported using drugs in the month before committing their crimes (BJS, 1998). The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM) has reliably reported that between 50% and 82% of males in major urban areas test positive for drugs, confirming a strong relationship between drug use and crime (ADAM Annual Report, 1998).