Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Perceived Coercion and Motivation on Treatment Completion and Re-Arrest among Substance-Abusing Offenders

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

Abstract

The effects of perceived coercion and motivation on treatment completion and subsequent re-arrest were examined in a sample of substance-abusing offenders assessed for California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) program. Perceived coercion was measured with the McArthur Perceived Coercion Scale; motivation was measured with the subscales of the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). At treatment entry, clients were more likely to believe that they had exercised their choice in entering treatment than that they had been coerced into treatment. SACPA clients scored relatively low on Recognition and Ambivalence regarding their drug use but relatively high on Taking Steps to address their drug problem. Correlations between perceived coercion and motivation measures at treatment entry indicated that these are separate constructs. In logistic regression models, the Recognition subscale of the SOCRATES significantly predicted “any re-arrest,” and Ambivalence and Taking Steps predicted “any drug arrest.”

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Craddock SG, Rounds-Bryant JL, Flynn PM, et al. Characteristics and pretreatment behaviors of clients entering drug abuse treatment: 1969 to 1993. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1997;23:43–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Maxwell JC. Substance Abuse Trends in Texas, December 1995 (Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse [TCADA] Research Briefs). Austin, TX: TCADA; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Price RH, D’Aunno T. 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, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Longshore D, Prendergast ML, Farabee D. Coerced treatment for drug-using criminal offenders. In: Bean P, Nemitz T, eds. Drug Treatment: What Works?. New York: Routledge; 2004:109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anglin MD, Perrochet B. Drug use and crime: a historical review of research conducted by the UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center. Substance Use and Misuse. 1998;33(9):1871–1914.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaiken JM, Chaiken MR. Drugs and predatory crime. In: Tonry M, Wilson JQ, eds. Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol. 13. Drugs and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990:203–239.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fagan J. Intoxication and aggression. In: Tonry M, Wilson JQ, eds. Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol. 13, Drugs and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990:241–320.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McBride DC, McCoy CB. The drugs–crime relationship: an analytic framework. Prison Journal. 1993;73(3–4):257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nurco DN, Kinlock TW, Hanlon TE. The drugs–crime connection. In: Inciardi JA, ed. Handbook of Drug Control in the United States. New York: Greenwood; 1990:71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Parker R, Auerhahn K. Alcohol, drugs, and violence. Annual Review of Sociology. 1998;24:291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. White HR, Gorman DM. Dynamics of the drug-crime relationship. In: Jefferis E, Munsterman J, eds. Crime and Justice 2000, Vol. 1: The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice; 2000:151–218.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Allen LC, MacKenzie DL, Hickman LJ. The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for adult offenders: a methodological, quality-based review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001;45(4):498–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dowden C, Blanchette K. An evaluation of the effectiveness of substance abuse programming for female offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2002;46(2):220–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marlowe DB, Glass DJ, Merikle EP, et al. Efficacy of coercion in substance abuse treatment. In: Tims FM, Leukefeld CG, Platt J, eds. Relapse and Recovery in Addictions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2001:208–227.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pearson FS, Lipton DS. A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug abuse. Prison Journal. 1999;79(4):384–410.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pearson FS, Lipton DS, Cleland CM, et al. The effects of behavioral/cognitive–behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency. 2002;48(3):476–497.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sia TL, Dansereau DF, Czuchry ML. Treatment readiness training and probationers’ evaluation of substance abuse treatment in a criminal justice setting. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2000;19(4):459–467.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wild TC, Roberts AB, Cooper EL. Compulsory substance abuse treatment: an overview of recent findings and issues. European Addiction Research. 2002;8:84–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Farabee D, Prendergast M, Anglin D. The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation. 1998;62(1):3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Farabee D. Substance Use among Male Inmates Entering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, 1993. Austin, TX: Texas Commission of Alcohol and Drug Abuse; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Alletto R. Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: structural and psychological determinants. Addictive Behaviors. 1998;23(1):81–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilboy J, Schmidt J. “Voluntary” hospitalization of the mentally ill. Northwestern University Law Review. 1971;66:429–453.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lidz CW, Hoge SK, Gardner W, et al. Perceived coercion in mental hospital admission. Pressures and process. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1995;52(12):1034–1039.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nicholson RA, Ekenstam C, Norwood S. Coercion and the outcome of hospitalization. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1996;19:201–217.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Knight K, Hiller ML, Broome KM, et al. Legal pressure, treatment readiness, and engagement in long-term residential programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2000;31:101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shearer RA, Ogan GD. Voluntary participation and treatment resistance in substance abuse treatment programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2002;34(3):31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Leon G, Melnick G, Tims FM. The role of motivation and readiness in treatment and recovery. In: Tims FM, Leukefeld CG, Platt JJ, eds. Relapse and Recovery in Addictions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2001:143–171.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Klag S, O’Callaghan F, Creed P. The role and importance of motivation in the treatment of substance abuse. Therapeutic Communities: International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations. 2004;25(4):291–317.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simpson DD, Joe GW. Motivation as a predictor of early dropout from drug abuse treatment. Psychotherapy. 1993;30(2):357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  30. De Leon G, Jainchill N. Circumstance, motivation, readiness, and suitability as correlates of treatment tenure. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 1986;18(3):203–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Rowan-Szal GA. Drug abuse treatment retention and process effects on follow-up outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1997;47:227–235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cosden M, Basch JE, Campos E, et al. Effects of motivation and problem severity on court-based drug treatment. Crime and Delinquency. 2006;52(4):599–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shen W, McLellan AT, Merrill JC. Client’s perceived need for treatment and its impact on outcome. Substance Abuse. 2000;21(3):179–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hiller ML, Narevic E, Webster M, et al. Problem severity and motivation for treatment in incarcerated substance abusers. Substance Use and Misuse. 2008;in press.

  35. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1983;51(3):390–395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Miller WR, Heather N, eds. Treating Addictive Behaviors: Process of Change. New York: Plenum; 1986:3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: applications to addictive behavior. American Psychologist. 1992;47(9):1102–1114.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller WR. Motivation for treatment: a review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin. 1985;98(1):84–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith MB, Hoffmann NG, Nederhoed R. The development and reliability of the Recovery Attitude and Treatment Evaluator-Questionnaire I (RAATE-QI). International Journal of the Addictions. 1995;30(2):147–160.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rollnick S, Heather N, Gold R, et al. Development of a short “Readiness to Change” questionnaire for use in brief opportunistic interventions. British Journal of Addictions. 1992;87:743–754.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. McConnaughy EA, Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice. 1983;20:368–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. Urada D, Longshore D, Conner B. Treatment. In: Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Final Report. Prepared for the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2007:33–56.

  44. Farabee D, Hser Y-I, Anglin MD, et al. Recidivism among an early cohort of California’s Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology &Public Policy. 2004;3(4):501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hardy M, Teruya C, Longshore D, et al. Initial implementation of California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: findings from focus groups in 10 counties. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2005;28:221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hser Y-I, Teruya C, Evans EA, 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 

  47. Klein D, Miller RE, Noble A, et al. Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: Lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California’s Proposition 36. Milbank Quarterly. 2004;82(2):723–757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Longshore D, Urada D, Evans E, et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: 2003 Report. Prepared for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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 

  50. 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 

  51. 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 

  52. Gardner W, Hoge SK, Bennett N, et al. Two scales for measuring patients’ perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1993;11:307–321.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Monahan J, Hoge SK, Lidz C, et al. Coercion and commitment: understanding involuntary mental hospital admission. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1995;18(3):249–263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Farabee D, Hser YH, Anglin MD, et al. Recidivism among an early cohort of California’s Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology and Public Policy. 2004;3(4):563–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hepburn JR, Harvey AN. The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court? Crime & Delinquency. 2007;53(2):255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Longshore D, Teruya C. Treatment motivation in drug users: a theory-based analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006;81:179–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Urada D, Longshore D. SACPA offenders. In: Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Final Report. Prepared for the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 2007:12–32.

  58. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112(1):155–159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stolzenbert L, D’Alessio SJ. Sex differences in the likelihood of arrest. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2004;32:443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference. Effective medical treatment for opiate addiction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:1936–1943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Klag S, Creed P, O’Callaghan F. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure perceived coercion to enter treatment for substance abuse. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20(4):463–470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. De Leon G, Melnick G, Kressel D, et al. Circumstances, motivation, readiness, and suitability (the CMRS scales): predicting retention in therapeutic community treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1994;20(4):495–515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Leukefeld CG, Tims FM. Compulsory treatment: a review of findings. In: Leukefeld CG, Tims FM, eds. Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1988:236–249.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York: Guilford; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Czuchry M, Dansereau DF. Using motivational activities to facilitate treatment involvement and reduce risk. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2005;37(1):7–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Blankenship J, Dansereau DF, Simpson DD. Cognitive enhancements of readiness for corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. Prison Journal. 1999;79(4):431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins ST, Silverman K, editors. Motivating behavior change among illicit drug abusers: Research on contingency management interventions. 1st edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.

Download references

Acknowledgment

Our thanks to Elizabeth Evans for responding to multiple requests for information on the TSI study, to Kris Langabeer for editorial review of the manuscript, to Jordana Hemberg for preparing the tables, and to four anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Michael Prendergast PhD, Lisa Greenwell PhD, David Farabee PhD & Yih-Ing Hser PhD

Authors
  1. Michael Prendergast PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Greenwell PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Farabee PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yih-Ing Hser PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Prendergast PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prendergast, M., Greenwell, L., Farabee, D. et al. Influence of Perceived Coercion and Motivation on Treatment Completion and Re-Arrest among Substance-Abusing Offenders. J Behav Health Serv Res 36, 159–176 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9117-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9117-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation