Given the high proportion of criminal justice treatment clients in the United States, a major policy and program issue in drug treatment is the appropriateness and effectiveness of coercing offenders to enter and remain in treatment. As part of a comprehensive evaluation of a large treatment facility in California, the authors conducted an analysis of during-treatment psychosocial changes of inmates admitted voluntarily and those admitted involuntarily. The main focus was on psychological functioning (self-esteem, depression, anxiety, decision making, and selfefficacy) and social functioning (hostility, risk taking, and social conformity). Regardless of voluntary or involuntary admission status, treatment participants exhibited significant during-treatment change on most measures of psychosocial functioning, although significant change was more likely on measures of psychological than on social functioning. In addition, similar percentages of both groups were paroled from treatment (as opposed to being discharged from the program prior to parole) and agreed to attend community treatment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anglin, M. D. , & Hser, Y. (1990). Legal coercion and drug abuse treatment: Research findings and social policy implications. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States (pp. 151-176). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
2.
Anglin, M. D. , & Hser, Y. (1991). Criminal justice and the drug-abusing offender: Policy issues of coerced treatment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 243-267.
3.
Brecht, M. , Anglin, M. D., & Wang, J. C. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 19, 89-106.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics . (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, state and federal prisoners,1997. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
5.
De Leon, G. (1988). Legal pressure in therapeutic communities. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86, pp. 236-249). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
6.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York: Springer.
7.
Dorsey, T. L. , & Zawitz, M. W. (2000). Drugs and crime facts (NCJ 165148). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
8.
Farabee, D. , Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M. D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62, 3-10.
9.
Farabee, D. , Simpson, D., Dansereau, D., & Knight, K. (1995). Cognitive inductions into treatment among probated drug users. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 669-682.
10.
Gilboy, J. , & Schmidt, J. (1971). “Voluntary” hospitalization of the mentally ill. Northwestern University Law Review, 66, 429-453.
11.
Hoge, S. , Lidz, C., Eisenberg, M., Gardner, W., Monahan, J., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., & Bennett, N. (1997). Perceptions of coercion in the admission of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric patients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20, 167-181.
12.
Hubbard, R. L. , Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., Harwood, H. J., Cavanaugh, E. R., & Ginzburg, H. M. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: A national study of effectiveness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
13.
Inciardi, J. A. (1988). Compulsory treatment in New York: A brief narrative history of misjudgment, mismanagement, and misrepresentation. Journal of Drug Issues, 18, 547-560.
14.
Inciardi, J. A. , Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278.
15.
Kane, J. A. (1973). A legal history of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. In Drug use in America: Problem in perspective (Appendix, Vol. IV, pp. 485-515). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
16.
Knight, K. , Hiller, M. L., Broome, K. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2000). Legal pressure, treatment readiness, and engagement in long-term residential programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 101-115.
17.
Knight, K. , Simpson, D. D., Chatham, L. R., & Camacho, L. M. (1997). An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas’ in-prison therapeutic community program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24, 75-100.
18.
Maxwell, J. C. (1996). Substance abuse trends in Texas, December 1995 (TCADA Research Briefs). Austin: Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse.
19.
McGlothlin, W. H. , Anglin, M. D., & Wilson, B. D. (1977). An evaluation of the California Civil Addict Program (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series, DHEW Pub. No. ADM 78-558). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Miller, N. S. , & Flaherty, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment (alternative consequences): A review of the clinical research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 9-16.
21.
Miller, W. R. (1985). Motivation for treatment: A review, the special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 84-107.
22.
Miller, W. R. , & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford.
23.
Musto, D. (1987). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control (Expanded ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Petersen, D. M. (1974). Some reflections on compulsory treatment of addiction. In J. A. Inciardi & C. D. Chambers (Eds.), Drugs and the criminal justice system (pp. 143-169). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Prendergast, M. , Wellisch, J., & Wong, M. (1996). Residential treatment for women parolees following prison drug treatment: Treatment experiences, needs and services, outcomes. The Prison Journal, 76, 253-274.
26.
Price, R. H. , & D’Aunno, T. (1992). NIDA III Respondent Report Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey: A national study of the outpatient drug-free and methadone treatment system, 1988-1990 results. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
27.
Rotgers, F. (1992). Coercion in addiction treatment. In Annual reviewof addiction research and treatment (pp. 403-416). New York: Pergamon.
28.
Simpson, D. D. , Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 294-307.
29.
Simpson, D. D. , & Knight, K. (1998). TCU data collection forms for correctional residential treatment. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research.
30.
Simpson, D. D. , & Sells, S. B. (1982). Effectiveness of treatment for drug abuse: An overview of the DARP research program. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 2, 7-29.
31.
Simpson, D. D. , Wexler, H. K., & Inciardi, J. A. (Eds.). (1999). Drug treatment outcomes for correctional settings, Part 1.The Prison Journal, 79, 291-368.
32.
Toews, J. , el-Guebaly, N., Leckie, A., & Harper, D. (1984). Patients’attitudes at the time of their commitment. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 590-595.
33.
Webster, C. D. (1986). Compulsory treatment of narcotic addiction. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 133-159.
34.
Weisner, C. (1990). Coercion in alcohol treatment. In Broadening the base of alcoholism treatment (pp. 579-609). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
Weisner, C. M. (1987). The social ecology of alcohol treatment in the United States. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 5, 203-243.
36.
Wexler, H. K. , De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999). The Amity prison TC evaluation: Reincarceration outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 147-167.
37.
Wild, T. C. , Newton-Taylor, B., & Alletto, R. (1998). Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: Structural and psychological determinants. Addictive Behaviors, 23, 81-95.
