The Federal Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA) provided for compulsory treatment and supervised aftercare of narcotic addicts. The law was passed amid controversy as to whether addiction should be controlled by enforcement efforts or through treatment and prevention. Through NARA, treatment was permitted for offenders as a pre-trial civil commitment instead of prosecution for addicts convicted of specific crimes and for voluntary applicants. The law was complex in its implementation because each treatment category had burdensome legal and logistical particularities.
Numerous “gatekeepers” screened and selected clients for admission resulting in frequent disagreement about clients' eligibility. Because capacity was limited during preliminary program development, many potential clients were rejected from the program. The program suffered criticism because of its high rejection rate and because of perceived high program costs.
NARA was a relatively short-lived program superseded by other legislation Still, much was learned from the program and a national network of treatment providers resulted. Civil commitment proved to be an effective way of bringing narcotic addicts into treatment, and evaluations of those admitted show they did as well as or better than those treated in other settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
A. D. Little Company1975Social Cost of Drug AbuseCambridge: A. D. Little Company, unpublished copy.
2.
AnglinM. D.McGlothlinW. H.1984Outcomes of Narcotic Addict Treatment in California. In TimsF.RuchmanN. (eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress and Prospects. NIDA Research Monigraph 51, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 84–1349.
3.
AronowitzDennis1971Civil Commitment of Narcotic Addicts. In HealyManak (eds.) Drug Dependence and Abuse Resource Book. Chicago: National District Attorney Association.
4.
BennettJ. V.1971A Prison Administrator Views Today's Narcotic Problem. In LivingstonR. B. (ed.) Narcotic Drug Problems, Washington, D. C., G.P.O.
5.
BrownBertram S.1971Testimony before Subcommittee on Alcohol and Narcotics. Government Printing Office.
6.
BrownBertram S.1975Drugs and Public Health: Issues and Answers. In LambertRichard D.HestonAlan W. (eds.) The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
7.
CollinsJames J.AllisonMargaret1983Legal Coercion and Retention in Drug Abuse Treatment. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 34:12.
8.
Comptroller General1971Report to Congress, Limited Use of Federal Programs to Commit Narcotic Addicts for Treatment and Rehabilitation. U. S. Government Printing Office.
9.
ConradHarold T.1972NIMH Clinical Research Center Lexington, Kentucky: Current Status. In BrillLeonLiebermanLouis (eds.), Major Modalities in the Treatment of Drug Abuse. New York: Behavioral Publications.
10.
Consad Research Corporation1974Bureau of Prisons Addict Commitment Client Outcome Evaluation and NARA I/II/III Comparisons. Washington, D. C.
11.
CurranWilliamGostinLarryClarkMary. 1986Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Legal and Regulatory Policy, HHS contract 282-86-0032. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
12.
DeskindM. H.1960New Horizons in the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction. Federal Probationer.
13.
DupontRobert L.1978Policy implications of 20th Century Rates of Opiate Addicts in the United States. Speech presented at the Psychiatric Institute, Washington, D. C.
14.
EinsteinStanley1980The Community Response to Drug Use. Elmsford, New York, Pergamon Press.
15.
General Counsel1972U. S. Public Health Service Advisory.
16.
GoldRonChathamLois R.1973Characteristics of NARA Patients in Aftercare During June 1971. DHEW Publication HSM-73-9054, Government Printing Office.
17.
GusfieldJoseph R.1975The (F) Utility of Knowledge?: The Relation of Social Science to Public Policy Toward Drugs. In LambertRichard D.HestonAlan W. (eds.) The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
18.
HubertyDavid J.1972Civil Commitment of the Narcotic Addict. Crime and Delinquency.
19.
InciardiJames A.1986The War on Drugs, Heroin, Cocaine, Crime and Public Policy. Palo Alto, Mayfield Publishing Co.
20.
KaplanJohn1983The Hardest Drug, Heroin and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
KitchenerHoward L.TeitelbaumHugh1986A Review of Research on Implementation of NARA Title II in the Bureau of Prisons. Bureau of Prisons.
22.
LangenauerB. J.BowdenC. L.1971A Follow-up Study of Narcotic Addicts in the NARA Program. American Journal Psychiatry121:1.
23.
MadduxJames F.1978History of the Hospital Treatment Programs, 1935–74, Drug Addiction and the U. S. Public Health Service, G.P.O.
24.
MadduxJames F.1987Person Written Communication.
25.
MandellWallaceAmselZili1972Status of Addicts Treated Under the NARA Program. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, School of Hygiene. Report of Contract HSM-42-72-37.
26.
McGlothlinH. W.AnglinM. D.WilsonB. D.1977An Evaluation of the California Civil Addict Program, NIDA Research Monigraph Series, DHEW Publication No. (ADM) 78–558.
27.
McGlothlinWilliam H.TabbushVictor C.ChambersCarl D.JamisonKay1972Alternative Approaches to Opiate Addiction Control: Cost Benefits and Potential. BNDD Contract J-70-33. U. S. Department of Justice.
28.
MustoDavid F.1973The American Disease. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29.
Narcotic Drug Addiction Problems1971Government Printing Office.
30.
National Institute of Mental Health1972Staff Report.
31.
National Institute of Mental Health1976Budget Justification Sheets.
32.
National Institute of Mental Health1978Survey and Reports Branch, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology.
33.
National Institute on Drug Abuse1979Staff Report.
34.
PearsonGladysSeiftHaroldLaherByronHubertyDavid1973NARA: Was is Worth it in Selected Papers, Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America, 24th Annual Meeting.
35.
PersonP. H.ChathamL. R.DuranR. H.1971Program Evaluation in NIMH Funded Treatment. Presented at American Public Health Association Meeting, Minneapolis.
36.
PetersonDavid M.YarvisRichardFarkasGerald M.1969The Federal Bureau of Prisons Treatment Program for Narcotic Addicts. Federal Probation.
37.
Presidents Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse1963U.S. Government Printing Office.
38.
Proceedings White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse1963Government Printing Office.
39.
RazorRobert W.1970Preliminary Report on the Institutional Phase of Treatment Under the Federal Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. Committee on Problems on Drug Dependence, National Academy of Science Report, Washington, D.C.
40.
RazorRobert W.1970Reflections on the Narcotic Farms. In MartinWilliam R.HarrisIsbell (eds.) Drug Addiction and the U.S. Public Health Service.
41.
ShomanLarry1979Reefer Madness, New York: Grace Press.
42.
Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse1967President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Government Printing Office.
43.
The Drug Abuse Council1972Federal Drug Abuse Programs, A report prepared by the Task Force on Federal Heroin Addiction Programs and Submitted to the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Drug Abuse Council, Washington, D.C.
44.
The Drug Abuse Council1980The Facts about “Drug Abuse”, New York: The Free Press.
45.
WexlerDavid B.1981Mental Health Law. New York: Plenum Press.
46.
White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse1963Government Printing Office.
