NCJ Number
135901
Date Published
Unknown
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This study critiques the recent history and evaluation results of civil commitment drug treatment programs in the United States as well as the development and outcomes of later legal-coercion drug treatment efforts.
Abstract
Three major civil commitment programs for drug addicts have been established in the United States in the last 30 years: the California Civil Addict Program (CAP), the New York Civil Commitment Program (CCP), and programs under the Federal Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA). Assessments of these programs generally indicate that the CCP was a failure, the NARA was somewhat more effective, and the CAP was the most successful of the three efforts; it reduced daily narcotics use and associated property crime by program participants three times as much as was achieved with similar addicts who were not in the program. With the rise of community-based treatment systems, the civil commitment concepts and programs fell into disuse, to be replaced by a looser arrangement in which many persons were referred, but not committed, to drug treatment by the courts or by the probation or parole system. This study tested the effects of legal coercion in drug treatment by comparing California groups treated under high legal coercion, under moderate legal coercion, and under no legal coercion. Differences in performance among these groups during their first methadone maintenance treatment episode were examined. There were no significant differences in treatment outcomes among the groups. This suggests that legal coercion does not compromise treatment and does bring more drug abusers into treatment. An integrated dynamic system of social intervention for drug treatment is proposed. 3 tables, 3 figures, 4 notes, and 30 references