Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

High-Risk Offenders Participating in Court-Supervised Substance Abuse Treatment: Characteristics, Treatment Received, and Factors Associated with Recidivism

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High-risk offenders treated by California’s Proposition 36 court-supervised drug treatment initiative account for a disproportionate number of re-arrests (Hawken 2008) undermining the many successes of the program, yet little is known about their characteristics, treatment experiences, or factors that influence re-arrest. To better understand this group, self-reported and administrative data were analyzed on 78 high-risk (five or more convictions in the previous 5 years) and 1,009 low-risk offenders enrolled during 2004. At intake, high-risk offenders were younger, more were male, and more had prior contact with psychiatric and criminal justice systems. Treatment received and the proportion recidivated during the 30-months after treatment assessment were similar across groups, but high-risk offenders had a greater number of re-arrests. The number of re-arrests was increased by high-risk classification, but decreased by receipt of more treatment services and longer treatment length. Moreover, the number of re-arrests was highest among high-risk offenders with shorter treatment lengths, whereas it was similar to that among low-risk offenders if treatment length was longer. To reduce recidivism among high-risk offenders in court-supervised drug treatment, consideration of psychiatric problems and criminal history is needed, as is receipt of sufficient treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Prop. 36). 2008. Available at: http://www.adp.ca.gov/sacpa/prop36.shtml. Accessed October 8, 2009.

  2. Hawken A. High-risk and high-cost offenders in Proposition 36. 2008. Available at: http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 9, 2009.

  3. California Department of Finance. Governor’s Budget 2008–2009. 2008. Available at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.

  4. Little Hoover Commission. Addressing addiction: Improving and integrating California’s substance abuse treatment system. A report to the California Legislature. 2008. Available at: http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report190.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.

  5. Evans E, Li L, Hser YI. Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2009; 32: 204–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hser YI, Evans E, Teruya C, et al. Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California’s Proposition 36 participants. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2007; 30: 187–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taxman FS, Thanner M, Weisburd D. Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 2006; 52: 28–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Thanner MH, Taxman FS. Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2003; 24: 137–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Taxman FS, Bouffard J. Treatment inside the drug treatment court: The who, what, where, and how of treatment services. Substance Use & Misuse, 2002; 37: 1665–1688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marlowe DB. Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science and Practice Perspectives, 2003; 2: 4–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marlowe DB. Judicial supervision of drug-abusing offenders. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2006; 29: 337–357.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, et al. Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2007; 88: 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, et al. Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 2006; 52: 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Barnett PG, Sempel JM, et al. Outcomes and costs of matching the intensity of dual-diagnosis treatment to patients’ symptom severity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2006; 31: 95–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thornton CC, Gottheil E, Weinstein SP, et al. Patient-treatment matching in substance abuse drug addiction severity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 1998; 15: 505–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tiet QQ, Ilgen MA, Byrnes HF, et al. Treatment setting and baseline substance use severity interact to predict patients’ outcomes. Addiction, 2007; 102: 432–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Timko C, Sempel JM. Short-term outcomes of matching dual diagnosis patients’ symptom severity to treatment intensity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004; 26: 209–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Babor TF. Treatment for persons with substance use disorders: Mediators, moderators, and the need for a new research approach. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 2008; 17: 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karno MP, Longabaugh,R. Does matching matter? Examining matches and mismatches between patient attributes and therapy techniques in alcoholism treatment. Addiction, 2007; 102: 587–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ. Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 2005; 4: 263–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farabee D, Hser Y, Anglin D, et al. Recidivism among an early cohort of California’s Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 2004; 3: 563–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Urada D, Evans E, Yang J, et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2009 Report. 2009. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

  23. Hser YI, Teruya C, Brown AH, et al. Impact of California’s Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97: 104–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Urada D, Hawken A, Conner B, et al. (2008). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2008 Report. 2008. Available at: http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.

  25. Grella CE, Greenwell L, Prendergast M, et al. Organizational characteristics of drug abuse treatment programs for offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2007; 32: 291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hser YI, Teruya C, Evans E, et al. Treating drug-abusing offenders: Initial findings from a five-county study on the impact of California’s Proposition 36 on the treatment system and patient outcomes. Evaluation Review, 2003; 27: 479–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hser YI, Evans E. Cross-system data linkage for treatment outcome evaluation: Lessons learned from the California Treatment Outcome Project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2008; 31: 125–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Longshore D, Urada D, Evans E et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: 2004 report. 2005. Available at: http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 9, 2009.

  29. McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, et al. An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: The Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980; 168: 26–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 1992; 9: 199–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bovasso GB, Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, et al. Predictive validity of the Addiction Severity Index’s composite scores in the assessment of 2-year outcomes in a methadone maintenance population. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2001; 15: 171–176.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ, Kleber HD. Concurrent validity of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1983; 171: 606–610.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. McLellan AT, Cacciola JC, Alterman AI, Rikoon SH, Carise D. The Addiction Severity Index at 25: Origins, contributions and transitions. American Journal of Addictions, 2006; 15:113–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Assessing drinkers’ motivation for change: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 1996; 10: 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McLellan AT, Alterman AI, Cacciola J, et al. A new measure of substance abuse treatment: Initial studies of the treatment services review. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1992; 180: 101–110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McCarty D, McGuire TG, Harwood HJ, Field T. Using state information systems for drug abuse services research. American Behavioral Scientist, 1998; 41: 1090–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saunders RC, Heflinger CA. Integrating data from multiple public sources: Opportunities and challenges for evaluators. Evaluation: International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice, 2004; 10: 349–65.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Evans E, Grella C, Murphy D, Hser YI. Using administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2010; 37: 252–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Evans E, Anglin MD, Urada D, Yang J. Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2011; 34:124–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Evans E, Li L, Urada D, Anglin M.D. Comparative effectiveness of California’s Proposition 36 and drug court programs before and after propensity score matching. Crime & Delinquency, 2011 (in press).

  41. Taxman FS, Perdoni ML, Harrison LD. Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2007; 32: 239–254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Holloway KR, Bennett TH, Farrington DP. The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing criminal behavior: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 2006; 18: 620–629.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kelly JF, Finney JW, Moos R. Substance use disorder patients who are mandated to treatment: Characteristics, treatment process, and 1- and 5-year outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005; 28: 213–223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ettner SL, Huang D, Evans E, Ash DR, Hardy M, Jourabchi M, Hser YI. Benefit-cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does substance abuse treatment “pay for itself?” Health Services Research, 2006; 41: 192–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Friedmann PD, Taxman FS, Henderson CE. Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2007; 32: 267–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System. Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 44. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05–4056. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005.

  47. McKellar J, Kelly J, Harris A, et al. Pretreatment and during treatment risk factors for dropout among patients with substance use disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 2006; 31: 450–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Laudet AB. The road to recovery: Where are we going and how do we get there? Empirically driven conclusions and future directions for service development and research. Substance Use & Misuse, 2008; 43: 2001–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Laudet AB, White W. What are your priorities right now? Identifying service needs across recovery stages to inform service development. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2010; 38:51–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. McLellan AT. Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from a chronic care perspective. Addiction, 2002; 97: 249–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sung HE, Belenko S, Feng L, et al. Predicting treatment noncompliance among criminal justice-mandated clients: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004; 26: 315–328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Merkx MJ, Schippers GM, Koeter MJ, et al. Allocation of substance use disorder patients to appropriate levels of care: Feasibility of matching guidelines in routine practice in Dutch treatment centres. Addiction, 2007; 102: 466–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hardy M, Teruya C, Longshore D, et al. Initial implementation of California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Findings from focus groups in ten counties. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2005; 28: 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chandler RK, Peters RH, Field G, et al. Challenges in implementing evidence-based treatment practices for co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2004; 22: 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. The Avisa Group. Comparing California’s Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation in other states and jurisdictions. 2005. Available at: http://www.prop36.org/pdf/ComparisonProp36OtherStates.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2009.

  56. California Secretary of State. Voter information guide. 2008. Available at: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop5-title-sum.htm. Accessed October 8, 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA; grant no. R01DA15431 & P30DA016383). Also, Dr. Hser is supported by a Senior Scientist Award (K05DA017648) and Dr. Huang is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH, grant no. R03MH084434-01A1 & R03MH084434-02). The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of NIDA or NIMH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, 1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd., 200, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, USA

    Elizabeth Evans MA, David Huang DrPH & Yih-Ing Hser PhD

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Evans MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Huang DrPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yih-Ing Hser PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Evans MA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evans, E., Huang, D. & Hser, YI. High-Risk Offenders Participating in Court-Supervised Substance Abuse Treatment: Characteristics, Treatment Received, and Factors Associated with Recidivism. J Behav Health Serv Res 38, 510–525 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-011-9241-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-011-9241-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation