The Drug Abuse Treatment Strategy of the Bureau

07/09/2021 by No Comments

Spread the love

The following article was written by Richard Schmit, MS/S, CDN and Program Director, Adult Day Treatment Center, and Program Director, D. Treatment Project, Department of Children and Families, and Associate Program Director, D. Treatment Project, Department of Corrections. The author is licensed as a clinical counselor with the Adult Treatment and Court Services Agency. He holds a doctoral and master’s degree, and has taught graduate and undergraduate level courses since 1985. He is a member of the American Counseling Association and the American Counseling Council. He has also been a consultant with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the National Institute of Justice.

A major concern with the release of juvenile delinquents into the community is that more children are re-arrested and placed back into detention after release. Some states have adopted mandatory detention policies, and others have not. These policies are based on the belief that it is easier for young people to be released rather than to be placed in detention. However, mandatory incarceration policies do not lead to safer communities or to less re-arrest. The National Institute of Justice, Division of Child Care and Development, found that detention leads to a decline in the number of children in the system.

* It is the quickest way to prevent re-arrest.

* Detention increases re-arrest if the juvenile’s behavior is out of control.

* Juvenile detention is a “preventive” detention, since there is no positive outcome from detention.

In addition, other states have adopted mandatory detention policies without first following the National Institute of Justice recommendation, which states that if there is a need for detention, then detention should be necessary. Many child welfare groups also recommend that community detention services be included in the early childhood services of the Department of Health and Human Services. Many advocates for children and their families do not agree with the approach and recommend community treatment.

Programs that serve high-risk populations of children and adolescents have been shown to reduce re-arrest rates and to reduce the severity and frequency of child maltreatment.

The Drug Abuse Treatment Strategy of the Bureau

This commentary article is excerpted from the Department of Health and Human Services Web site.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is implementing a comprehensive policy and practice approach to address substance use disorder (SUD), including treatment of co-occurring mental health and addictive disorders. A variety of approaches have been proposed and evaluated, including comprehensive models, comprehensive and intensive models, and stepped-care models. In this commentary, we review some of the many treatment models proposed by HHS and consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of these models for substance use disorders. We review these models in relation to the new HHS SUD treatment models with a focus on the most recent developments and models and consider the possible benefits of each model in the context of a unified, comprehensive approach.

In the United States, substance abuse is among the leading causes of death, accounting for more than 400,000 deaths per year. Substance use disorders including SUDs are estimated to affect 5% to 10% of all Americans. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of HHS is responsible for administering federal funds for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of substance use disorders. It includes the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, the Center for Transforming Addictions and Treatment, and the Adolescent Health and Trauma Program in its mission. The Center for Transforming Addictions and Treatment is charged with developing innovative ways of helping to address the growing need for access to care that provides appropriate and effective treatment for adults with substance abuse disorders and their families. The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention conducts a variety of national surveys and regularly evaluates various treatment models; the Center for Adolescent Health and Trauma, which is modeled after the Adult Recovery Development Program, is similarly involved in research and developing new interventions. On the basis of such studies, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and the Center for Adolescent Health and Trauma are proposing two new comprehensive models for substance use disorders: Comprehensive Recovery (CR) and Transitional Recovery (TR).

A 12-week cognitive-behavioural therapy treatment program for criminals with short sentences

The authors aim to describe a treatment program that teaches, in a culturally competent way, criminals with short sentences to learn to control their emotions and their impulse to use violence. The treatment program consists of three modules, each of 45–60 minutes and targeted to one of the following emotions: anger, guilt, resentment, shame, fear, grief, and depression. The treatment is based on cognitive behavioural therapy and integrates mindfulness practice, a cognitive-behavioural treatment approach that promotes non-judgemental acceptance, and exposure techniques. A randomized, controlled, single-blind study. Methods: This was a prospective, controlled, randomized study in which criminals with short sentences (≤10 years and 60 days) were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 70) or the control group (n = 70). To prevent contamination, the control group was also randomly assigned to receive cognitive-behavioural therapy treatment. The experiment lasted about 12 weeks and was conducted in a real prison. The experimental group received training that consisted of modules that focused on anger, guilt, resentment, shame, grief, fear, and depression. The training was carried out by a person trained in the use of the techniques of exposure and mindfulness. The outcome measures were completed at the end of treatment and at two, six, and 12-month follow up. The findings were analysed using χ², Fisher’s exact test, and t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated. The results were analysed with a 95% confidence interval and a P value. Results: The experimental group had significantly better outcomes on the three outcome measures compared with the control group. The intervention made a significant contribution to the results concerning anger, guilt, resentment, shame, grief, and depression. A t test showed that the experimental group had significant improvements in the depression outcome measures compared with the control group. The results for anger were significant. The experimental group had lower scores in the anger outcome measure. The data regarding resentment and shame were in line with the expected findings, but these were not significant. However, the results concerning grief were close to the results of previous studies. The results concerning fear were generally similar to the previous studies. The results for sadness were also rather similar to the results of previous studies.

Care of the Continuum of Control for American Probation

A model that does not focus on “individual” responsibility is still the fundamental approach to criminal justice policy in the United States. It is an approach that emphasizes a continuum of control, from criminal to civil, and to probation, and even to rehabilitation in the form of an approach that focuses on the ability, not the guilt, not the accountability. This essay provides an interpretation of a model of probation that addresses individual responsibility, and that also promotes the creation of a continuum of control that is not focused on one type of justice. It is grounded in the “care of the continuum of control,” a concept that describes the continuous nature of social care from the point of view of the caregiver. The essay also addresses an analysis of the “care of the continuum of control,” the nature of probation, the creation of a continuum of control, and the responsibility of caregivers.

In the criminal justice system that we have inherited are some principles that still govern our approach to crime and justice. But in many ways the very idea of individual responsibility has lost its significance, and the model that has informed the sentencing system for centuries in the United States, the model of probation, in many ways has lost its relevance.

In the United States no one is held accountable for their criminal conduct, and the sentencing judge alone imposes the sentence. And of course the sentence imposed is always in accordance with the sentence recommended by the prosecutor, defense attorney, and even the sentencing commission. But this does not mean that punishment is irrelevant, nor that the power to punish is reduced by the fact that the offender is on probation.

The sentencing judge is called upon to exercise the power of sentencing in order to impose a sentence that is tailored to the offender’s individual characteristics: his or her criminal history, his or her education or training, their family background, the circumstances of the crime, and their ability to change: the very definition of rehabilitation.

“He made a good living, and he’s never made any money.

Tips of the Day in Programming

1) Question 2 of the day from Brian M. (C++ Programming Language Fundamentals, page 26).

Question 2 of the day from Bryan M. (C++ Programming Language Fundamentals, page 11).

Question 3 of the day from Jonathan L. (What is C++? page 24). I am trying to understand why the type, class, and method names are plural.

Question 4 of the day from Jonathan L. (What is C++? page 24). The C++ STL is not specified, yet.

Question 5 of the day from Richard C. (C++: The Good Parts: The Standard Library 2nd Edition, page 44). I understand the concept of the STL, although I am missing some of its functionality.

Question 6 of the day from Matthew J. (C++ Design Patterns: A Complete Reference, chapter 25).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.