1 Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs Austin Nichols CJUS 4901 FALL 2012
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 2 Abstract Rehabilitation in the eyes of the criminal justice system has been arguably a waste of time because of the lack of evidence surrounding the recidivism rates of drug offenders in America. The policies that have been implemented up to this point seem to be ideal when typed out on paper but when it comes to the actual implementation of these policies, they are lacking in results. Rates of recidivism in this country are not reducing, and it s no wonder with the amount of people who do not get the help that they need when in the system and are then thrown back out to the world with no changes. Police are arresting the same criminals again and again. A few programs that this paper will take a look into are significantly helping to rehabilitate drug offenders in the justice system. Implementation of specific treatment programs and drug courts are among just a few of the programs. Time is the factor that will gauge all of these programs, but initial results are curving the recidivism rate and incarceration rates downward.
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 3 Introduction Should criminals be punished for their crimes committed in the past, or should they be subject to treatment programs and rehabilitation while in prison? The current rehabilitation programs that are in our prisons are simply not holding up in the decrease of recidivism. When considering rehabilitation programs, quality and effectiveness concerns have been raised. Many argue that staff is not implementing the rehabilitative effort. We live in a world where it is believed that we are not able to make people better. In 1989, the Supreme Court decided to abandon the pursuit of rehabilitative programs due to a lack of evidence backing its effectiveness. Mistretta v. United States was a case that supported this. When looking at the policies before implementation they looked very worthwhile, however, attaining them actually turned out to be something else entirely. After numerous times of having behavior that is not becoming to society, in and out of prisons, being in trouble since a young age, it is hard to think that someone can change through rehabilitation to become a member of society that does the right thing instead of the wrong thing they have been doing for their lifetime. Not all offenders of drugs are in this situation though. Some of them may have simply fallen on a time that was hard and did it once not thinking they would get caught. Some may have been forced into it. There are many types of people who get mixed up in the drug offender scheme of the law. It does not mean that they cannot be changed. With the correct implementation of rehabilitation programs for drug offenders we can see the number of recidivism for these crimes decrease significantly, instead of saying that it is not possible. Drug treatment would be at the top of the list. With over a 70% recidivism rate of drug abusers within 3 years of release, the punishment verse treatment debate still leaves many with the mindset
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 4 that nothing works (Hepburn). There is a large argument between rehabilitation and punishment wondering if treatment does actually work and how effective can it really be against the delinquent behaviors as opposed to punishment. Each person is different when it comes to rehabilitation efforts. With each person you must take into consideration the characteristics of the offender, how severe the offense was, and how good the treatment program has been implemented within the system to make it work. The best alternative at this point is that of drug courts. Literature Review Efforts of rehabilitation have begun to come into a sense of one size fits all. Why should that happen when each case of each person within the system is different? For example, one who committed a robbery as opposed to someone who was arrested with drugs keep the same rehabilitation efforts; keep them locked up and away from society, punish them. How is it ever expected to help each individual case to adopt a way out, a way to change? Treatment options are limited, but by breaking them down into different programs, there are successful ways that it can be done. To try to find a program for an individual case instead of a mass quantity would be more effective, although more time consuming. In Massachusetts, for example, recidivism decreased among youth drug offenders where a variety of programs were administered. Group homes, electronic monitors, foster care, therapy, and job programs were a few of these that were implemented. However, in the other areas that did not have this treatment plan, the rates of recidivism either saw no change or an increase. Obviously the tactic of a plethora of programs wasn t one that was short-sighted.
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 5 In 2009, two researchers, Copes and Vieraitis, looked within the system for current prisoners charged with identity thefts. They analyzed the offenders through listening to how they came to make the decisions that they made. Through removing excuses that may be used to justify their crime and by changing offenders perceptions of punishment they can begin to understand this certain class of offender. (Copes) By listening to each person you can begin to make a plan based on the offender s specific needs. To restructure the mind while in prison is a way that rehabilitation can be used in the system, however you need to have people that are knowledgeable in the correct field, such as someone for computer crime and another for those who have committed aggravated assaults on others. We do not need someone fitted for multiple duties, such as murders and drug offenders. Those two are completely different crimes and require a different set of attention. Obviously funding and being able to find the people that can make this happen are very limited, but this approach can significantly bring down the recidivism rate as it was applied to the younger groups and has been effective. Not all drug deficiencies are beyond a mental capacity to save, but more attention may have to be given to those who are further into dependence of the drugs. State corrections officials approximate between 70% and 85% of inmates need a degree of substance abuse treatment. This means that inmates are likely still using sorts of drugs within the prison walls. In about 7,600 correctional facilities, 172,851 inmates participated in drug treatment programs in 1997, which was less than 11% of the incarcerated population (Phelps). About 70% of the prisoners receiving the drug rehabilitation treatment were within the general population of the prison. Of all the inmates treated in prison for drug abuse problems, 65 to 70% of them recidivate within three years of release (BJS).
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 6 Treatment programs outside of the prison system are continuing to work, reducing the amount of people dependent on drugs. If it is not working in the prison system, either the staff isn t providing the necessary treatment to make it work or the system implemented is too broad and therefore needs to be revised to fit more groups within the prison. The corrections community has many duties ranging from administrative such as wardens, correctional officers, and appointed political figures with almost no experience into the causes of delinquency and ways to treat it other than the current punishment. By using services such as a AA/NA clinic in a prison, it was save so much more money than it would to keep someone incarcerated for upwards of 10 years. Probation is a key factor in some instances also. People are able to be released back into the world with someone watching them and allowing them to make changes to their lifestyle, but the result usually ends in relapse, which lands them right back in the system. There are tests using Relapse Screening Questionnaires that identify high-risk situations that may lead to relapse during probation (Spurgeon). It accurately identifies those who are in the low risk area who do not relapse once they have had treatment. 33% of the offenders in the severe risk level relapsed in the following two months after the treatment was administered. With this information, more time can be spent concentrating on those who are in the severe risk level, making more resources available to prevent relapses. For the first 70 years of the twentieth century the United States had a relatively stable and common incarceration rate where approximately 100 out of every 100,000 citizens were imprisoned at any given moment. In the past 40 years, there has been a
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 7 large spike in this rate, with the figure reaching 491 per 100,000 in 2005 (BJS). In 2007, 53% of the federal sentenced prisoners were drug offenders (BJS). Overpopulation is then becoming a problem. People who are lower-level drug offenders are filling up prisons rapidly due to the crackdown and harsh, long sentences for drugs in the United States. What s worse is they are in prison with higher-level drug offenders, leading to even more problems in their treatment. According to a 2002 report, 75% of drug offenders in state prisons were strictly non-violent offenders, and 58% of prisoners overall had no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity. The Jail Treatment Program is a good match for these types of prisoners. It ends up costing half the amount to keep the inmate in the prison. The Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment program was established to deliver substance abuse treatment to inmates during their incarceration and after their release from jails. The average daily cost was $30.19 compared to $64.02 daily without it in 2005. Within this system, a large portion of the inmates continued to be sober, did not recidivate, and were able to find employment for at least one year. Sobriety from drugs increased by 82.4 percent from being admitted and maintained a 75.5% rate at the 12-month check up (Gainey & Heddens). With prison being so expensive to house an inmate that is not receiving adequate treatment for an addiction it is no wonder that tons of money has been thrown down the drain due to billions of dollars in fighting drugs and housing inmates for years (Heddens). This treatment is just one of the ways that money can be saved instead of pouring it into treatments that are simply ineffective. By keeping these lower-level offenders in programs such as this, the criminal record can be minimized or done away with for them, keeping them out of the already overcrowded prison system and keeping them from relapsing into drugs in the first place.
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 8 This gives those low-level risk drug offenders a real chance to succeed in society. Intermediate sanctions are another kind of treatment program that is showing promise. When implemented correctly, this alternative sanctions program is effective for treating drug offenders. With regards to this treatment, offenders have to have an interest in making real positive changes in their lives with no excuses to their past behaviors. With this in mind, positive treatments lead to the a more healthy community of productive citizens. Many offenders that try to take charge into this however are simply lying to get the system to kick them a punishment that is easier than incarceration in the prisons. This makes judges wary of the offenders that they let have this kind of alternative, making it used less than the primary system in place. Alternative sanctions serve two main purposes; it helps reduce the overcrowding issues in our prisons and saves money in the need to house them. It works by targeting the offender s behaviors that led up the crimes committed. Lower-level drug offenders using this system are able to have a controlled but more freeing experience than they would if they were incarcerated, which provides for an environment that can stimulate change. Other alternative sanctions programs include: intense supervision, day reporting centers, boot camps, electronic monitoring, and home detention, or house arrest. These alternative sanctions fall under drug offender sentencing, work-ethic camps, and firsttime offender waivers. Prior felony convictions are not an option for these programs. When a judge awards a person this type of sentence, the offender gets three days of incarceration credit per day, which reduces sentence time significantly and also saves a hefty amount of money to be used elsewhere. Obviously this is not widely used but has
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 9 been effective for many who want to set themselves apart from the stereotype of highlevel offenders and lead themselves to betterment. Basically, these alternative sanctions provide a way to better achieve goals for those who have made a mistake in falling into the drug offender section of the law, no matter for how brief a time. It keeps them from spending a multitude of years within a system when they can be one-time, one-and-done types of offenders. Success isn t clear cut with this program. It takes planning and practice to get this system to work; however when it isn t widely used, that planning and practice is hard to attain. As alternative sanctions become increasingly prevalent within structured sentencing systems, both quantitative and qualitative research looking at the perceptions and use of various alternatives will help advance a deeper understanding of the sentencing process (Gainey). Drug courts are another effective measure for drug offenders. The notion with regards to drug courts is that they reduce the crime rate, save money, and preserve families. These courts specialize in drug cases that are in need to treatment services, not simply punishments. Drug courts require close supervision of offenders but keep the offender in for as long as it takes to complete treatment. Recent reviews are finding that these courts are having a positive effect on reducing recidivism. Results of a recent review show that drug offenders who participated in the program have a lower recidivism rate than those who don t participate, but the impact varies by type of drug court in used. For adult drug courts, the average recidivism rate dropped from 50% to approximately to 37%. The results were measured over a span of three years keeping the same statistics. These courts are obviously having a good impact on the number of people who are being
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 10 rehabilitated, and it would not be a good idea to cut the funding for this program so early in its use with such good numbers. Financially it saves money in the system instead of housing an inmate and seems to be working well. Results do vary with respect to these courts, however, as with all newer ideas. Some courts simply do not produce the data to make an accurate assessment of its use. For example, in 2001 Steven Belenko reviewed 37 evaluations and responded on drug courts saying that they were having positive effects on the long-term use of drugs and drug related offenses. However, Belenko also noted that only 6 of the studies that were done actually did what they were intended to do in a long-term approach. In review of the juvenile drug courts, the numbers were simply too small to make conclusion about its effectiveness on minors in the reduction of their recidivism rates. Conclusion Rehabilitation means the restoration to a normal life or former position by retraining. It means that there is a teaching of the skills needed to join the society that the rest of us are a part of, changing the stereotypes and labels placed on them as an offender or a criminal into someone that is considered a good citizen. There was a time for everyone in their lifetime that they were a citizen that abided by the law and were not tainted by drugs. Currently there is a large amount of information on our rehabilitation programs that suggests that recidivism rates are decreasing strongly. The programs mentioned above are showing a good trend in successful treatment of the offender in the United States. Behind each person who has committed an offense is a specific problem that we need to work to face with a program more specifically designed for it. One size
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 11 fits all is not correct for these situations and only leads to more spending of money and further recidivism among offenders. The idea that the offender cannot be salvaged is simply untrue and many of these new programs are showing that with successful patients becoming members of society without drugs and further crimes. Punishment is not the only way to make these things change and sitting in a cell without a way to change yourself and then simply being thrown back out with a label on your head for all to see is no way to change the offender of the crime. Given more time, there will be more changes and more programs in this evolving criminal justice environment. Only time will be able to successfully work on the development and changing statistics of these rehabilitation efforts.
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 12 References Copes, H., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2009). Bounded rationality of identity thieves. American Society of Criminology, 8(2), 26. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2179/store/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00553.x/asset/j.1745-9133.2009.00553.x.pdf?v=1&t=h5mumbjp&s=b5ae2c372f1bcaf6288ce0e5bbbde9 6dcdca9085 Cutler, L. M. (2009). Arizona's Drug Sentencing Statute. New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 35(2), p397-420. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2104/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=104&sid=f994c3a1-2bc0-4b01-84e8- a0965b6accf6%40sessionmgr104&bdata=jnnpdgu9zwhvc3qtbgl2zszzy29wz T1zaXRl#db=cja&AN=43583956 Gainey, R. R., Steen, S., & Engen, R. L. (2005). Exercising Options: An Assessment of the Use of Alternative Sanctions for Drug Offenders. 22(4), 34. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:6652/doi/pdf/10.1080/07418820500219219 Haag, E. V. (1982). Could successful rehabilitation reduce the crime rate. 733, 15. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2200/pdf18_21/pdf/1982/clc/01sep82/22812727.p df?t=p&p=an&k=22812727&s=r&d=sih&ebscocontent=dgjymnxb4ksepr Y4v%2BvlOLCmr0qep7NSsae4S7SWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGqsE6 0rrVKuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA Heddens, S., & Arndt, S. (2006). Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program. The
Success in Drug Offenders in Rehabilitation Programs 13 Iowa Consortium, 13. Retrieved from http://iconsortium.substabuse.uiowa.edu/downloads/idph/jail_based_cost_analysis.pdf Hepburn, J. R. (2005). Recidivism Among Drug Offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24. Retrieved from http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/16/2/237.full.pdf+html?ijkey=zvq6bjisxdef2&k eytype=ref&siteid=spcjp Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era. Law and Society Review, 45(1), 37. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2200/pdf25_26/pdf/2011/lsr/01mar11/59342821.p df?t=p&p=an&k=59342821&s=r&d=lgh&ebscocontent=dgjymnxb4ksepr Y4v%2BvlOLCmr0qeprBSsK64TLWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGqsE 60rrVKuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA Recidivism. (2008, August 8). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 8, 2012, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 Reentry Trends In The U.S.. (2012, August 8). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 8, 2012, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm Spurgeon, A. (2000). Developing a substance abuse relapse screening questionnaire. journal of offender rehabilitation, 32(1/2), 16. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2104/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6c5c364c- 2d6a-4757-b948-843bb5d14b92%40sessionmgr104&vid=13&hid=104