Establishing a compulsory drug treatment prison: Therapeutic policy, principles, and practices in addressing offender rights and rehabilitation

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Establishing a compulsory drug treatment prison: Therapeutic policy, principles, and practices in addressing offender rights and rehabilitation Astrid Birgden a,⁎, Luke Grant b a b

Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center, Corrective Services NSW, Australia Offender Services and Programs, Corrective Services NSW, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Compulsory drug treatment Offender rehabilitation Therapeutic jurisprudence Human rights

a b s t r a c t A Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center (CDTCC) was established in Australia in 2006 for repeat drug-related male offenders. Compulsory treatment law is inconsistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence approach. Despite the compulsory law, a normative offender rehabilitation framework has been established based on offender moral rights. Within moral rights, the offender rehabilitation framework addresses the core values of freedom (supporting autonomous decision-making) and well-being (supporting support physical, social, and psychological needs). Moral rights are underpinned by a theory or principle which, in this instance, is a humane approach to offender rehabilitation. While a law that permits offenders to choose drug treatment and rehabilitation is preferable, the article discusses the establishment of a prison based on therapeutic policy, principles, and practices that respond to participants as both rights-violators and rights-holders. The opportunity for accelerated community access and a therapeutic alliance with staff has resulted in offenders actively seeking to be ordered into compulsory drug treatment and rehabilitation. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In August 2006, passage of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center Bill NSW 2004 in the Australian State of New South Wales (NSW) established the CDTCC (a small seventy bed prison in Sydney, Australia) to which eligible and suitable offenders would be subjected to a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order (CDTO). The Act amended the Drug Court Act 1988 (Part 2A), the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (Part 4A), and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (Schedules 1–3). A compulsory drug treatment prison program is unusual on an international basis. The impetus from the NSW State Government for commencing such a program arose from a perception that, despite a comprehensive array of supply, demand, and harm reduction strategies that were reducing drug-related crime and deaths, there remained a persistent group of drug-related offenders who kept returning before the courts. These offenders had exhausted the diversionary programs available and appeared to be responsible for a disproportionate volume of property crime. This group may have reflected those offenders who had previously refused voluntary drug treatment offered in prison (see Kevin, 2003). Additionally there was a perception that the availability of illicit drugs in prisons mitigated against the success of drug relapse prevention strategies and that abstinence-based approaches other than the Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) model had not been trialed in a separate and

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Birgden).

truly “drug-free” correctional facility. An abstinence model was considered necessary, notwithstanding some evidence of the efficacy of methadone available in NSW prisons (see Lind, Chen, Weatherburn, & Mattick, 2004). More recently, a Cochrane review conducted by Mattick, Breen, Kimber, and Davoli (2009) concluded that while methadone maintenance therapy reduces heroin dependence and maintains individuals in medical treatment, it does not reduce criminal activity or mortality. The CDTCC was to address all of these issues and was heralded in the Government's 2003 election platform as a tough new criminal justice strategy. In the second reading of the Bill, the Honorable John Della Bosca (Special Minister of State) stated to the NSW Parliament that the legislation provides: [A] comprehensive legal basis for Australia's first compulsory drug treatment correctional center…. a hard-core group of offenders with long-term drug addiction and an associated life of crime and constant imprisonment. It is for offenders who have failed to enter or complete other voluntary or court-based treatment programs. The program sits at the end of the continuum of drug diversion programs in New South Wales aimed at breaking the drug–crime cycle. Eligible offenders to the program will be sent to a special correctional facility dedicated to abstinence-based treatment, rehabilitation, and education. There will be intensive judicial case management of these offenders, in close partnership with the correctional authorities as well as health and other service providers. The compulsory drug treatment program will build on the productive justice and health system linkages already established

0160-2527/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.006

342

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

for programs such as the Drug Court program. Offenders will be gradually reintegrated back into the community and targeted with support after completion of their program and even beyond parole. The aim is to achieve better outcomes for the State's most desperately entrenched criminal addicts by assisting them to become drug free and crime free, to take personal responsibility, and to achieve a more productive lifestyle. (Hansard, 2004) The subsequent Compulsory Drug Treatment Program (the Program) allows the NSW Drug Court (the Drug Court) to order sentenced, repeat drug-related offenders to the CDTCC for comprehensive drug treatment and rehabilitation. The Program is an interagency one and reports regularly to the Attorney-General, the Minister for Corrective Services, and the Health Minister. The government expects that at any one time up to 100 adult male offenders will be participating in treatment. If after two years the Parliament deems the Program successful, the government will extend the Program to female offenders (Hansard, 2004). As the Program is a pilot project, the NSW Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has recently completed an independent evaluation of participants' drug use, health and social functioning, and perceptions of the Program to be presented to Parliament (Dekker, O'Brien, & Smith). The researchers conducted baseline measures based on drug test results of 108 commencing participants and conducted baseline participant interviews and psychometric testing on 95 commencing participants. Thereafter, re-assessment occurred at the end of secure detention (Stage 1, N = 74), end of semi-open detention (Stage 2, N = 39), and end of community custody (Stage 3, N =13). In this period, 55 participants continued through the Program. The three defining features of the Program are that: (1) the Senior Judge of the NSW Drug Court provides ongoing judicial supervision throughout the sentence until eligibility for parole, (2) the model of drug treatment and rehabilitation is abstinence-based and addresses other offending behavior and is jointly delivered by Corrective Services NSW and Justice Health,1 and (3) the treatment is clearly compulsory — no consent and no appeal. The following article will consider the human rights implications of compulsory treatment in terms of policy, principles, and practices that underpin the CDTCC.

1.1. Offenders and human rights Contemporary Australian criminal justice policy is reflected by increasing imprisonment rates, over-representation of Aboriginal prisoners, and increasing use of mandatory sentencing, “truth in sentencing” with no remissions, and longer sentences (Dawes, 2002). Nevertheless, offenders are sentenced to corrections as punishment rather than for punishment (Sanson, Montgomery, Gault, Gridley, & Thomson, 1995). Human rights are prescribed by international laws although specific reference to prisoners is rare (Giffard, 2002). The United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990) reinforces that all prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. Therefore, while prisoners consequently have some limitations applied to their rights, they have the same enforceable human rights as other citizens and ought to expect humane treatment from both the courts and corrections (Giffard, 2002; Ward & Birgden, 2007). However, offender rights have not been well articulated, and, even where a Human Rights Act exists to monitor prison standards, such laws “will be viewed predominantly as a legal risk and hence a technical problem to be managed, rather than a source of normative values” (Murphy & Whitty, 2007, p. 810). As a result of the lack of a normative framework, “there has been virtually no attention paid to the application of a

1

A statutory health corporation.

human rights perspective to practice with offenders…this is indeed worrying” (Ward & Birgden, 2007, p. 629) and in Australian prisons “... it is clear from published research and fieldwork...that the [human rights] policies themselves are deficient and the practices flowing from the policies require change” (Bird, 2002, p. 69). According to Vinson (1982) imprisonment in Australia had historically meant forfeiting personal rights automatically and completely although …an inmate's rights and freedoms should be limited only by the need to maintain security and reasonable order. Furthermore, the deprivation of a person's liberty should be the extent of the punishment, not gratuitous discomforts, abuses or deprivations imposed by prison authorities. In other words, the prisoner should be considered a citizen who is deprived of his liberty but retains other basic rights and obligations. (p. 48) Normative values such as dignity, respect, and autonomy ought to support offender rights. A service such as corrections can be a “just institution” if it has trustworthy motives, fair procedures, neutral decision-making, and dignified treatment of individuals (Liebling, 2004; Tyler & Blader, 2000). What is at the core of offender rights, and poorly addressed in corrections, is the notion of offender autonomy. Whether the criminal justice system should be concerned with autonomy is a normative question, but at present it is expected that individuals should have their autonomy protected as it is a basic moral obligation (Winick, 1992). A risk management culture in corrections can undermine the human rights principle of autonomy. According to Hannah-Moffat (2000) offender “empowerment” within the Canadian correctional system has meant a shift towards holding offenders responsible for their behavior and a concomitant shift from the obligations of government; an approach to offender rehabilitation that assumes rational choice is exercised results in widened intervention and is monitoring in disguise. For instance, a failed urine drug test results in coercive disciplinary consequences — institutional charges, segregation, revocation of privileges including visits, or a return to prison. Such penal practices create a marginal group of “the unempowerable”. In the mental health context, Schopp (1993) has described autonomy as a right, a virtue, and a capacity. As a right, autonomy is an entitlement to self-determination (e.g., control of one's body, family, employment, privacy, and property). As a virtue, autonomy is a set of conditions (e.g., self-reflection, direction, reliance, and control). As a capacity, autonomy is a necessary condition, because an individual who does not have capacity cannot exercise rights or develop virtues. Combined, autonomy allows the individual to exercise self-determination, develop the virtues of autonomy as a condition, and possess autonomous capacities. Autonomous individuals develop an integrated life by reviewing and shaping their projects, motives, and conduct. Autonomy may be restricted by lack of rights and capacity (e.g., poor decision-making) or by lack of rights and virtues (e.g., poor impulse control). Due process in law supports autonomy by allowing freedom of choice without intrusion on individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness; where the State does intervene, the decision needs to be rationally justified rather than be arbitrary or unreasonable (Ward & Birgden, 2007; Winick, 1992). Put another way, forfeiture of offender rights should only occur for legitimate security reasons and the humane and efficient management of corrections (Ward & Birgden, 2007). Forfeiture of offender rights requires due process considerations which are more evident in the courts than corrections. Due process in enhancing compliance with the law has been analyzed in defendants (see Tyler, 1990, 1996) and has only recently concerned offenders (Tyler, 2010). Applied to offenders, due process considerations in case management ought to include participation (encouraging the offender to share in decision-making), dignity (being respectful and acknowledging the offender's rights and values as a competent, equal citizen and human being), and trust (decisions clearly explained by authority figures). In

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

this way, case management procedures are more likely to be perceived as fair even if the offender may not agree with the ultimate outcome. Importantly, Winick noted that an autonomous individual will maximize individual and community well-being, as required by the principles of morality and justice. Attention to offender autonomy and due process underpin the therapeutic policy, principles, and practices of the CDTCC. Offender rehabilitation occurs within a broader criminal justice system and therapeutic jurisprudence can assist to support offender rights. Therapeutic jurisprudence is a conceptual framework that embodies law as therapy and supports the law acting as a therapeutic, rather than an anti-therapeutic, agent (Winick, 1997; Wexler, 1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence promotes autonomy, not punishment (Wexler & Winick, 1996). It treats individuals as “…competent adults who are able to make choices rather than as incompetent subjects of paternalism [which] predictably has a therapeutic effect” (Winick, 1996, p. 161). Therapeutic jurisprudence does not support paternalism, coercion, or a therapeutic State and does not consider that therapeutic decisions should trump other considerations such as justice concerns or human rights (Wexler, 1993; Winick, 1997). Therapeutic jurisprudence analysis is based on court procedures rather than corrections (other than the court being a trigger for behavior change as part of the sentencing process or rehabilitation being a condition of community-based sentences or parole). Relevant to corrections, Birgden (2002) has summarized underlying principles as: a legal effect (the law can increase, decrease, or have a neutral effect on well-being), the teachable moment (the law should capitalize on the moment that the offender is brought before it as a way to start a pro-social life), a multidisciplinary approach (the relationship should be cooperative rather than antagonistic), offender rights–community rights balance (both therapeutic and justice principles but where societal values may override therapeutic values), and normative values (therapeutic jurisprudence has implicit value judgments and maximizes the overarching aims of the law). Therapeutic jurisprudence supports offender rights in making informed decisions to receive treatment and to refuse treatment (Winick, 2003). In recognition of concerns regarding offender rights, autonomy, and normative values, Ward and Birgden (2007) have proposed a human rights model for rehabilitation to protect against offenders being treated as objects or as a means to others' ends. Ward and Birgden argued that human rights are made up of legal rights prescribed by particular laws (e.g., international human rights law), social rights guaranteed by an institution (e.g., corrections), and moral rights that are underpinned by an articulated stance (e.g., a humane approach to offender rehabilitation). While legal and social rights result in a list of rules and duties, a human rights approach to offender rehabilitation requires a normative framework with a justifying theory based on moral rights. A normative framework can guide resolution of complex moral, social, and ethical issues that arise. For example, Birgden (2008b) had proposed a normative framework for forensic psychologists to determine under what circumstances quasi-compulsory treatment may be ethically acceptable for serious, high risk offenders (i.e., incapacitation occurs for those who choose not to participate in rehabilitation, but not beyond the original sentence). The best interests of the community are met when offender rehabilitation balances offender rights and community rights, rather than deterrence, incapacitation, or offender rehabilitation for community protection alone. A normative framework can aim to manage risk through control (for the community) and meet need through care (for the offender). Therefore, community rights will not necessarily outweigh offender rights, and any restrictions of offender rights must be rationally justified. 2. The Compulsory Drug Treatment Program The compulsory treatment law enacted by the CDTCC is unique in Australia, if not internationally. The Program incorporates the absti-

343

nence approach to drug use in the United States (even though Australia generally has a harm minimization approach) and compulsory treatment law in Europe (the SOV-Regulation in the Netherlands governing the Legal Detention of Addicts where drug treatment detention can be imposed for a maximum of two years on drug-related offenders who had become a serious “nuisance element”, Oei, 2005). Compulsory treatment law generally directs the offender, without consent, to enter treatment within the correctional system as the result of a criminal order. Compulsory treatment involves “…a serious diminution of autonomy and liberty” (Gostin, 1991, p. 561) and ethical concerns regarding legally coerced treatment of drug-related offenders have been expressed (see Gostin, 1991; Hall, 1997; Klag, O'Callaghan, & Creed, 2005; Seddon, 2007; Stevens et al., 2005). Authors such as Boldt (1998) warned that it is inappropriate to “treat” drug dependence within correctional systems designed for punishment and blame; drugrelated offenders should be sentenced to prison for finite punishment with an offer of assistance that the offender can voluntarily accept or reject. In particular, Boldt viewed compulsory treatment as punishing the offender for community protection (i.e., serves ends other than therapeutic ends) and denying offender dignity in applying paternalistic treatment programs to the socially excluded (i.e., offenders as objects rather than responsible moral agents). An alternative is quasicompulsory treatment law where the offender is offered, with consent, a “constrained choice” between entering treatment outside the correctional system or facing a legal consequence such as imprisonment, and so is not considered involuntary per se (Klag et al., 2005; Seddon, 2007; Stevens et al., 2005). In NSW, quasi-compulsory treatment occurs where defendants before the alternative Drug Court Program can choose between a problem solving court and a mainstream court and receive treatment in the community. Such an alternative would generally not be available to offenders such as those found eligible for this Program as they have often exhausted community-based sanctions and the courts feel compelled to impose a custodial sentence when confronted with persistent re-offending. In 1986 the World Health Organization concluded that the compulsory treatment of drug-related offenders was only legally and ethically justifiable if: (1) the rights of the individual were protected by due process to ensure judicial supervision and appropriate sanctions for non-compliance and (2) effective and humane treatment was provided (Hall, 1997). As will be detailed, the Program protects the rights of participants through judicial oversight and provides humane treatment. In addition, drug treatment and rehabilitation does not extend beyond the finite sentence fixed by the original sentencing court and participants have the added incentive of residing in the community before the non-parole period of their sentence. That is, the alternative to a CDTO is that offenders would have nonetheless been imprisoned for the full term of their sentence in a mainstream prison with less intensive drug treatment and rehabilitation programs available. A question is whether the State may be inappropriately intruding upon offender autonomy in compulsorily applying drug treatment and rehabilitation. Ultimately, social science evidence indicates that free choice is a more effective motivator for behavior change than constrained or forced choice (see Winick, 1992) and evidence regarding the efficacy of compulsory treatment is mixed. As detailed in Birgden (2008a), compulsory treatment is viewed by some to be effective in reducing drug-related offending in some circumstances. Recent studies have concluded that coerced and voluntary clients do not differ in treatment outcomes or voluntary clients have better treatment outcomes or coerced clients are more likely to successfully complete programs or legal coercion is unrelated to treatment outcomes (Farabee, Prendergast, & Anglin, 1998; Klag et al., 2005; Rempel & DeStephano, 2002) although Seddon (2007) warned that it is premature and misleading to state that compulsory treatment is effective. At the least, compulsory treatment may not necessarily result in worse outcomes than voluntary treatment, and motivation is important in

344

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

terms of problem recognition, treatment readiness, and help-seeking behavior (Stevens et al., 2005). Regarding compulsory treatment of offenders in general, Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, and Beauregard (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 129 studies conducted between 1970 and 2005, including drug treatment programs, and concluded that compulsory treatment in prisons was generally ineffective whereas voluntary treatment resulted in significant gains regardless of treatment setting but with greatest effect sizes in community settings. An alternative policy position to overcome offender rights concerns would be if the Program were based on quasi-compulsory treatment law as described above. In the Program, although the offender has already been ordered to imprisonment, the option of mainstream prison or the CDTCC would be therapeutic in providing choice. Most recently, a quasi-compulsory drug treatment program in England was evaluated where drugdependent offenders were ordered into treatment in the community. McSweeney, Stevens, Hunt, and Turnbull (2007) concluded that the offenders showed reduced substance use, injecting risk and offending behavior, and improved mental health, and that similar findings occurred for those in voluntary treatment at follow-up. Shearer and Ogan (2002) demonstrated that the perception of voluntary participation is as important as to whether participants have actually volunteered in terms of treatment outcome. Compulsory treatment is considered anti-therapeutic from both a psychological and therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. If the policy of the Program were quasi-compulsory treatment, it would not be considered legally coercive even if it is psychologically coercive in that a “hard choice” is required by the offender post-conviction and, furthermore, graduated sanctions to induce offender engagement “…if properly applied, may not even be experienced by the individual as psychologically coercive” (Winick, 2003, p. 184). In summary, the compulsory treatment law for drug-related offenders is unique in Australia and poses challenges regarding offender rights. Despite this, the authors are of the view that the CDTCC has a reputation amongst defendants and their families as a therapeutic and desirable prison.2 In terms of entry, while the CDTO does not require consent and cannot be appealed, offenders rarely protest to their legal counsel at the making of a CDTO and almost all offenders found ineligible or unsuitable challenge the outcome (one offender had requested a longer sentence to be eligible but net widening was declined by the sentencing Judge). The BOCSAR evaluation found that 80 of the 95 participants (84%) perceived their admission to the Program as voluntary and any negative affective reactions decreased significantly between sentencing and the baseline interview and then maintained itself throughout the Program (Dekker et al., 2010). In terms of exit, participants can be reluctant to leave the support of the CDTCC and recently five participants, of their own volition, have requested the Drug Court that they not be granted parole but remain on the CDTO for a few further months in order to receive ongoing support in the community. The BOCSAR evaluation found significant improvements in outcome measures of mental and physical health, high scores on treatment readiness and therapeutic alliance, and largely positive comments about the Program, with some negative comments regarding non-contact visits in Stage 1, sanctions for breaches, and lack of employment (Dekker et al., 2010). Compulsory treatment law need not necessarily inhibit what Wexler (1996) described as “…the therapeutic application of existing law as a promising path for applied psychology” (p. 180) where “…creative thought can many times lead to...a different application of the existing law” (p. 184). The following sections will consider how the CDTCC has attempted to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the compulsory treatment law by applying therapeutic policy, principles, and practices that engage, rather than coerce, behavior change.

2 In 2008 the CDTCC staff won a departmental Excellence in Humanity Award. CDTCC participants voted which of the most “humane” custodial officers × 2 and programs staff × 2 were to attend the ceremony.

2.1. Policy The policy operationalizes the compulsory treatment law. The initial proposal in 2003–04 was for the establishment of a prison that would reinforce drug prohibition through increased surveillance, drug testing, and initial limited direct family contact in the context of compulsory and abstinence-based drug treatment and rehabilitation. Incentives for compliance by way of remissions were not available in NSW as the State had adopted a “truth in sentencing” regime in 1989. Therefore, failure to comply or progress with treatment under the proposed legislation could have resulted in adverse consequences, including the extension of detention beyond the expiry of the court mandated non-parole period. As a result, correctional administrators were concerned that the proposed legislation would be too oppressive and would result in antagonistic participants less likely to be engaged in treatment. From a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, such a policy would be anti-therapeutic. To guard against this antitherapeutic effect, a powerful incentive of accelerated community reintegration under supervision prior to the expiry of the non-parole period was proposed. In order to assure the State Government that such an approach did not expose the community to increased risk nor undermine the authority of the judiciary, it was agreed that serious violent offenders would be ineligible and that entry, progression, or regression, and revocation or release to parole would be subject to the oversight of the Drug Court. Offenders found eligible and suitable offenders by the Drug Court are sentenced to a CDTO by way of detention at the CDTCC. The objectives of the legislation provide the blueprint for the service delivery model: (1) to provide a comprehensive program of compulsory treatment and rehabilitation under judicial supervision for drug-dependent persons who repeatedly resort to criminal activity to support that dependency, (2) to effectively treat those persons for drug dependency, eliminating their illicit drug use while in the program and reducing the likelihood of relapse on release, (3) to promote the reintegration of those persons into the community, and (4) to prevent and reduce crime by reducing those persons' need to resort to criminal activity to support their dependency. Once a CDTO is made, a multidisciplinary team develops the Compulsory Drug Treatment Personal Plan (the Personal Plan) with participants for approval by the Drug Court. The Personal Plan is a treatment plan, a case management plan, and a contingency contract combined. The Personal Plan identifies the areas regarding dynamic risk factors and human needs for offending, identifies the conditions for drug treatment and rehabilitation, and specifies the rewards for meeting the specified conditions and the sanctions for not meeting the specified conditions. Success in meeting the conditions of the Personal Plan is rewarded with progression toward community reintegration. Failure to meet the conditions of the Personal Plan can result in sanctions of increased management, regression, or ultimately revocation (with a return to mainstream prison to complete the nonparole period of the sentence). With its emphasis on rewards and sanctions, the law could have allowed the CDTCC to have functioned as an anti-therapeutic “boot camp” with harsh punishment, withdrawal of privileges, and “zero tolerance” for drug use. However, shock or intensive incarceration with swift punishment for misbehavior has been found in a Campbell Systematic Review of 32 studies to have no impact on post-program arrests or convictions (Wilson, MacKenzie, & Mitchell, 2008). Instead, the therapeutic policy has been to engage offenders in change by rewarding pro-social behaviors through the application of contingency contracting; an empirically-based approach to increase motivation to change, which emphasizes rewards rather than sanctions, or “carrots and consequences”. Contingency contracting tends to be applied in drug courts and health clinics rather than in corrections. Principles of contingency contracting include: individualized and naturally occurring rewards to act as stronger alternatives to drug use;

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

an escalating reward reinforcement schedule with a “reset” to zero for not meeting conditions; a four-to-one ratio of rewards to sanctions; and the sanctioning of only serious violations of rules (Gendreau, Cullen, & Bonta, 1994; Longshore et al., 2001; Marlowe & Kirby, 1999; Petry, 2000). Since drug use is recognized as a chronic recurring condition, positive drug tests result in a treatment rather than a punishment response (while violence and re-offending is more likely to lead to revocation from the Program). 2.2. Principles A therapeutic policy needs to be underpinned by principles that support behavior change. The offender rehabilitation framework at the CDTCC applies two models simultaneously; the risk–need model and the good lives model (for more detail see Birgden, 2004, 2008a). The risk–need model targets empirically-derived risk factors in higher risk offenders and identifies situations to be avoided and risks to be managed (Andrews & Bonta, 2003, 2010). Briefly, the model includes principles regarding risk (who should be targeted for treatment), need (what should be targeted for treatment), and responsivity (how treatment should be delivered). Dynamic (or changeable) risk factors for drug-related offending include substance use, impulsivity, poor academic achievement, economic hardship, hostile beliefs, anti-social rationalisations, criminal lifestyle, and association with anti-social peers (McMurran & Priestley, 2004). While these risk factors are assessed and targeted at the CDTCC, this approach alone is insufficient to establish a therapeutic prison and engage behavior change. The good lives model determines ways of living that are beneficial and fulfilling to the individual in meeting their basic human needs (Ward, 2002; Ward & Stewart, 2003). The model is underpinned by a number of principles regarding well-being: universality (well-being is universal to all human beings), interdependence (we rely on others for our well-being), choice (well-being is derived from choice), individualized (individual strengths, preferences, and the environmental context), and normative (what constitutes well-being differs amongst individuals and will not necessarily match staff values). The model assumes that human needs are met through offending and identifies pro-social means to meet those identified human needs. Importantly, the model emphasizes autonomy and a therapeutic alliance to support offenders' conception of a “good life”. Autonomy is the ability to function independently as an integrated being, to form one's own values and beliefs, and to make decisions (Ward, 2002). A therapeutic alliance requires staff to be non-judgmental and respectful and address human needs such as personal distress, distrust, and low self esteem (Ward & Brown, 2004). At the CDTCC, the good lives model supplements the risk–need model and guides treatment processes. While the risk–need model has risk management as its primary goal, the good lives model has improved offender well-being as its primary goal and risk management as the secondary goal. In turn, the good lives model reflects therapeutic jurisprudence in that it is also humanistic and concerned with autonomy. A therapeutic prison requires more than an offender rehabilitation framework to support offender rights. While the CDTCC cannot diverge from the prescribed legal and social rights as set out in law and policy, it can influence moral rights within its offender rehabilitation framework to ensure a therapeutic prison. Moral rights include those rights that are naturally retained, justifiably curtailed, or the State is obliged to retain (Lippke, 2002). While the goal of community protection might propose that offender rights may be overridden by the State if the rights of nonoffenders outweigh them, an offender rights approach would add the caveat that any override by the State is to be rationally justified for a set period of time (to avoid threats to autonomy). In the human rights model, proposed by Ward and Birgden (2007), offenders are considered both rights-holders (holders of human rights) and rights-violators (violators of human rights) and so they can claim particular rights from corrections, as long they are not violating the rights of others in the

345

process. Moral rights consist of two overarching values that ought to be met within corrections but are often absent; the core value of freedom requires supporting autonomous decision-making (i.e., to be treated as an autonomous agent and to make decisions about how to lead a “good life”) and the core value of well-being requires meeting physical, social, and psychological needs (e.g., the right to physical and mental health, education, improved social relationships, and freedom from discrimination). At the CDTCC, this means that any restriction on liberty regarding increased supervision, regression, or revocation is rationally justified (the value of freedom) and that identified needs are met through multidisciplinary and interagency support (the value of wellbeing). Both freedom and well-being are ensured by judicial oversight from the Drug Court (as recommended by the World Health Organization in Hall, 1997). On a more practical note, attention to offenders' moral rights assists the CDTCC to better meet the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (United Nations, 1977) despite the compulsory treatment law. Part II of the Standard General Rules includes rules for prisoners under sentence and is designed to demonstrate “the spirit” in which prisons should be administered. Guiding Principle 57 describes imprisonment as afflictive in that it takes from the person the right of self-determination by deprivation of liberty and so the prison system should not aggravate the suffering; except for justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline. With its emphasis on the core values of freedom and well-being, the CDTCC has a reputation amongst offenders and their families for being a “safe” prison. That is, respectful relationships with staff and a non-violent environment exist “for it is here that a powerful message can be sent to prisoners e.g., ‘this prison does not tolerate assaults and every effort will be made to investigate the incident thoroughly and action taken to try and prevent occurrences’” (Dawes, 2002, p. 120). Guiding Principle 58 states that imprisonment is ultimately for community protection and this end can only be achieved if the imprisonment period assures community reintegration to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life. The CDTCC provides participants with the resources to develop a good life and ensure gradual and supported community reintegration before the end of sentence with potential regressions for breaching Personal Plan conditions before again progressing (i.e., “two steps forward and one step back” rather than “one strike and you're out”). Guiding Principle 59 states that the prison should utilize all remedial, educational, moral, spiritual, and other assistance applied according to the individual treatment needs. The Personal Plan is individualized and a suite of programs is available or sourced in the community (including individual needs regarding gambling, treatment for panic attacks, parenting, and couples counseling). Guiding Principle 60 states that the regime should minimize the difference between life at liberty and prison life where the responsibility of prisoners or their dignity as human beings may be lessened. Case management at the CDTCC is designed to support the participants as autonomous adults, within the constraints of a prison, to bolster their ongoing motivation and capacity. Guiding Principle 61 states that prisoners should be included, rather than excluded, in the community. Independently of the CDTCC, a community service work project has been instigated between the Stage 2 participants and a faith-based organization to provide meals to the homeless (considered more appropriate than isolating activities such as picking up roadside rubbish). Guiding Principle 62 states that medical services should detect and treat any physical or mental illness which may hamper offender rehabilitation. The CDTCC has its own health clinic providing specialist drug and alcohol treatment and mental health services (nurses, GP, psychiatrist, and dentist). Guiding Principle 64 states that efficient after-care assistance should be afforded by government and private agencies to lessen prejudice against the offender and support social rehabilitation. The CDTCC has partnership arrangements with a variety of government and community agencies which include employment, education, housing, mental health support, drug and alcohol counseling, and Aboriginal support.

346

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

2.3. Practices The purpose of offender rehabilitation in the Standard guidelines for corrections in Australia (2004) has a therapeutic focus “to assist the rehabilitation of offenders through the adoption of productive, law-abiding lives in the community” (p. 2) and provide “… opportunities to address their offending behavior and actively encouraged to access evidence-based intervention programs, education, vocational education, and work opportunities” (p. 12). The CDTCC has developed therapeutic practices to achieve these standards based on moral rights. Drug dependence has physiological, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics which impact upon social functioning, family, and community relationships (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006). The Program consequently addresses assessment, treatment, and management of drug-related offending based on therapeutic practice principles. Assessment determines the impact of drug dependence and other offending behavior on participants and their environment. Treatment addresses the relationship between drug use and offending, the underlying causes of drug use, the consequences of a drug using lifestyle, and the physical adaptation to chronic drug use. Management maintains the positive changes made to address drug use and offending behavior, within both the individual and their environment. Regular urine drug test results and psychometric measures of identified treatment targets serve as intermediate program outcome measures (i.e., positive changes in dynamic risk factors indicate potential reduced risk of relapse and reoffending). The BOCSAR evaluation found that 95.7% of 14,529 urine tests conducted between September 2006 and October 2009 were drug free, with only 1.8% detecting illicit drugs (Dekker et al., 2010). This result is in comparison to a statewide rate of 6% in 24,000 tests conducted by Corrective Services NSW. The less than 2% positive rate must also be noted in the context of the target group who are chronic drug users accessing the community and intensively tested. At August 2009, preliminary psychometric data analysis of tools administered by CDTCC staff indicated that positive changes are occurring for treatment readiness, impulse control, criminal thinking, problem solving skills, perceived quality of life, and so on. While the emphasis within the compulsory drug treatment law has been on risk management, the application of moral rights in practice in the CDTCC addresses participants as both rights-violators (managing risk) and rights-holders (meeting need). These therapeutic practices – assessment, treatment, and management – attend to the core values of freedom and well-being. 2.3.1. Assessment As rights-violators, participants are subjected to detailed and intrusive assessment (i.e., the risk–need model). Assessments include the legislated sharing of information between agencies and staff visits to family members. Based on departmental assessment of offenders when sentenced on the Level of Service Inventory—Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995), the majority of CDTCC participants score medium to high risk of re-offending 12 months after release. This is expected as eligibility requires at least two previous convictions. Risk management strategies include regular alcohol breath tests and observed urine testing (at least two times per week in Stage 1 and three times per week in Stages 2 and 3). The purchase of ‘Pro-Screen Cups’ to be administered “as required” towards the end of 2008 allowed for a timely result before the sample is sent to a laboratory for chain-ofevidence analysis. A positive test result allows for an immediate risk management response; undetected relapse to heroin use can lead to overdose and within an abstinence approach, where opiate substitution therapies are unavailable, the risk of death is heightened. Sanctions occur for positive or “very dilute” drug test results (see discussion below). As rights-holders, participants are encouraged to actively participate (i.e., the good lives model). The assessment process is designed

to motivate participants to ask “How can I live my life differently?” (Ward & Stewart, 2003, p. 143). An individualized clinical assessment and case formulation to develop the Personal Plan determines the nature and extent of drug dependence and other offending behavior, establishes which problem areas may be obstacles to leading a prosocial life, and hypothesizes the relationship between drug use and other offending behavior. To date, no participant has refused to develop a Personal Plan upon receiving a CDTO although treatment readiness vacillates as participants progress through the Program. Participants are provided with a copy of their Personal Plans (they are revised as they progress or regress) and any additional reports provided to the Drug Court and to their legal advocate. Based on social science evidence, a therapeutic approach to drug testing is considered more effective than a deterrence approach. Drug-free results are rewarded and admitted drug and alcohol use prior to testing results in lower level sanctions to encourage responsibility-taking. In practice, a number of Stage 2 and 3 participants will contact CDTCC staff while in the community to say they have relapsed to drug use and return to the CDTCC of their own volition for temporary increased management or regression for clinical review and re-assessment.

2.3.2. Treatment As rights-violators, participants are expected to complete various programs designed to reduce the likelihood of drug use and other offending behavior (i.e., the risk–need model). A controversial aspect from an Australian perspective is that the Program is abstinencebased. Abstinence requires gradual and medically assisted withdrawal in Stage 1, if the participant is prescribed 80 mg or less of methadone prior to the CDTO. Anecdotally, participants would rather be methadone-free (describing the experience as “liquid handcuffs”) but whether they have the capacity to remain drug free while abstinent is where the risk lies. An abstinence approach for heroin users may be anti-therapeutic. In treatment, participants learn to replace old patterns of thinking and behaving with new skills to engage in pro-social behaviors. Various supplementary programs address treatment readiness, education and work readiness, and social skills. A drug-related offending behavior program requires at least 100 hours of treatment over four months for stable behavioral change (Gendreau & Goggin, 1996). The core program to address this requirement is a manualized intensive program by Wanberg and Milkman (2006) delivered in Stage 1 and supplemented by individual counseling. This therapy program is designed to manage risk and participants often indicate that it is more confronting than they expected (particularly if they initially envisaged the CDTCC as an “easy” prison). Therefore, while the autonomy of participants may be compromised through required active participation in a designated therapy program, this program utilizes a motivational approach that focuses on participant strengths, interests, and abilities. To date, no participant has refused to participate in this drug-related offending program. In addition, choice of treatment options is provided wherever possible to enhance autonomy. When participants progress to Stage 2, they spend the first three months attending a SMART Recovery3 cognitive–behavioral self help program at the CDTCC and the second three months attending NA/AA self help groups in the community before deciding in Stage 3 which of the two models best suits them. Attending numeracy and literacy classes stigmatizes participants and so the CDTCC teacher co-facilitates treatment readiness groups and subtly responds to numeracy and literacy deficits. Weekly solution-focused community meetings occur for Stages 1 and 2 in which participants raise issues they have with staff (and vice-versa) to be resolved in pro-social ways. As rights-holders, the likelihood of drug relapse is recognized and managed therapeutically rather than punished (i.e., the good lives 3

See www.smartrecovery.org/.

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

model). Treatment is more likely to succeed if it strives for personal goals that participants wish to achieve (approach goals) rather than merely focusing on high risk situations (avoidance goals) (Ward & Maruna, 2007). Therefore, an abstinence model does not necessarily translate to “zero tolerance” or “3 strikes and you're out”. In order to meet needs, treatment also addresses offender well-being to ensure pro-social alternatives to relapse and re-offending. Physical needs are met by providing intervention to assist with short-term and longterm healthy body functioning (both mental and physical health). Social needs are met by encouraging family life, social support, meaningful work opportunities, and access to drug-free leisure activities (e.g., custodial officers will go bush walking, fishing, or swimming with Stage 2 participants). Psychological needs are met by providing skills to develop appropriate interpersonal relationships, master coping skills, and make informed decisions (i.e., support autonomy as much as possible within a prison setting). A focus on well-being provides the opportunity to meet human needs and to develop a socially acceptable and personally meaningful life. Participants differ in terms of age, culture, cognitive capacity, level of drug dependence, and level of supervision required and so respond differently to treatment approaches and staff (i.e., the responsivity principle). The goals in the Personal Plan consider mental health or cognitive capacity issues and support is tailored for culturally and linguistically diverse participants and Aboriginal participants. Upon completing the Program in Stages 1 and 2, participants continue drug treatment and rehabilitation in the community in Stage 3. In this way, they can learn to maintain change and to live a pro-social lifestyle, develop drug-free social networks, and effectively manage situations that may lead to drug relapse and re-offending. The Personal Plan is individualized to be responsive to these needs (“one size fits all” treatment is avoided). 2.3.3. Management Carefully considered management approaches balance the participants as rights-violators and rights-holders (i.e., therapeutic jurisprudence). Contingency contracting is a core strategy at the CDTCC to motivate offender engagement and reward behavior change and relies upon a dynamic case management system. As part of the process, custodial officers and program staff record all instances of pro-social behaviors and anti-social behaviors through the electronic offender management system, which also becomes data incorporated into regular assessment reports to the Drug Court. In the month of October 2009 staff had made 875 entries, 2.5 more entries compared to two similarly sized prisons. Participants meet weekly with their allocated therapist and custodial officer to review whether their behaviors have met a “community standard” and whether they have met the conditions of the Personal Plan. As rights-violators, participants are subjected to sanctions for not meeting the conditions of their Personal Plan (i.e., the risk–need model). A three level system has been developed. Level I is a sanction for inappropriate institutional behavior (e.g., refuse to clean, rude to staff or other participants). The response is feedback and the sanction is failure to receive a reward that week rather than a correctional charge, segregation, or punishment such as withdrawal of privileges. Punishment fails to change behavior and traditionally does not meet due process considerations. Level II is a sanction for failure to meet a condition of the Personal Plan (e.g., admitted drug use) and/or an offence against the security of the CDTCC (e.g., releasing a fire extinguisher). The response is re-assessment regarding risk and a return to “zero” on the rewards list and the sanction on a case-by-case basis may result in increased management (e.g., increased drug testing at work) and logical consequences (e.g., replace the fire extinguisher). Level III is a sanction for a serious breach of the Personal Plan, such as violence or non-admitted/repeated drug use, and may result in delayed progression, regression to a previous stage or ultimately revocation (if participants are unlikely to make further

347

progress, pose an unacceptable risk to the community of re-offending, or pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others). The BOCSAR evaluation found that of 108 commencing participants, 26 (23%) had been revoked from the Program (Dekker et al., 2010). A drug-free prison environment is maintained through intrusive interventions (prison cell and dog searches, pat and occasional strip searches upon return from the community, and unannounced home visits) and approved access to friends and family. Regarding the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia (2004), non-contact visit in Stage 1 is a violation of Standard 3.27 that all prisoners should be permitted to have direct contact visits “unless there is a breach of security, rules or protocols directly associated with a visit” (p. 24) and Standard 3.27 where prisoners should not be denied access to and/or visits with their children, unless it is not in the best interests of the child/ren. Anecdotally, participants understand that non-contact visits in Stage 1 are to maintain a drug-free environment and weigh that against earlier community access to family in Stages 2 and 3, although 48 of 74 participants (65%) expressed their dislike (Dekker et al., 2010). The CDTCC has allowed escorted visits in the community for Stage 1 participants involved in births of their children and deaths of close relatives. As rights-holders, participants are rewarded for meeting the conditions of their Personal Plan and an individualized rewards system has been developed (i.e., the good lives model). In Stage 1 the reward is chosen from a tiered list of escalating rewards such as food items, a photo sent to the family, or a small gift for their child. In Stage 2 the reward is social leave to visit family/church/community leisure activities following a graduated leave program. That is, in Stage 2 leave for education and/or employment is considered a right (unless risk needs to be managed) while social leave is considered a privilege (based on demonstrated pro-social behaviors). Keeping the CDTCC a drug-free environment is the primary goal; a weekly barbeque occurs in Stage 1 if the unit has remained drug- and alcohol-free regardless of what other institutional behavior may have occurred that week. Across all stages, participants unanimously agreed that being drug free was an important aspect of the Program. To date, Stage 1 has reached the goal of being drug free in 111 of 161 weeks (69%) between 2006 and 2009. The BOCSAR evaluation found that of 108 commencing participants, 26 (24%) had successfully obtained parole (Dekker et al., 2010). A therapeutic prison environment is retained through recognition that respectful relationships with staff engage participants in the therapeutic process, retain them in treatment, and assist them to rehearse abstinence over time. Participants are more likely to engage in compulsory treatment if staff are encouraging and engaging, rather than coercive and punishing (i.e., a “helping relationship” that is firm but fair). Engaging in a helping relationship includes identifying problem behaviors before rule violations occur and revising Personal Plans accordingly. Thus the focus becomes prevention and pro-social modeling rather than detection of rule violation. Regular case review meetings are designed to support participation, dignity, and trust. Participants are often asked to propose a plan-of-action to solve a particular problem and can request that a participant support person or their legal counsel be present. Ongoing judicial supervision of prisoner progress is unique in Australia and is a key feature with the Judge overseeing all decisions to regress, remove, or progress participants and regularly reviewing Stage 2 and 3 participants in person at the Drug Court. The opportunity to develop appropriate attitudes and values toward resolving interpersonal conflict, particularly toward authority figures, is provided. Participants have later apologized when they have overreacted to key authority figures in the community (e.g., transit police querying bus tickets) and to the Director (by phone or mail) after absconding. Evidence of the success of therapeutic management processes within a compulsory program are low scores at baseline on the MacArthur Perceived Coercion Scales (adapted from Gardner et al., 1993) and significantly higher scores on the Serin Treatment Readiness

348

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349

Scale (adapted from Casey, Day, Howells, & Ward, 2007) at the end of Stage 1 (Dekker et al., 2010). However, participant feedback in the BOCSAR evaluation regarding staff relationships were mixed — positive feedback regarding staff in general and therapy staff in particular or both positive and negative feedback regarding custodial officers specifically (Dekker et al., 2010). In summary, offenders can only be engaged to change, they cannot be forced to change (with or without a compulsory treatment law). The CDTCC has strived to manage the law by utilizing therapeutic policy, principles, and practices that balance the offender as both rights-violator and rights-holder and, in doing so, address the core values of freedom and well-being. 3. Conclusion It is preferable that offender rehabilitation provides voluntary treatment, serves therapeutic ends, and supports the offender as an autonomous adult. However, the CDTCC was established on the basis of a compulsory treatment law. While compulsory treatment is rejected by therapeutic jurisprudence, therapeutic policy, principles, and practices have been established at the CDTCC to support the core values of offender freedom and well-being. The unexpected consequence of this approach is that offenders and their families are actively seeking to gain access to a compulsory program. Establishing a prison based on human rights principles is not a new or novel idea. For example, Andrew Coyle has helpfully produced a handbook for prison staff (see Coyle, 2009). However, the handbook addresses freedom rights in terms of careful consideration of what rights are to be forfeited with loss of liberty and well-being rights in terms of accommodation, sanitary installations, food preparation, education regarding disease transmission, access to physical education and sport, and management of mental disorder. Coyle does not address moral rights or provide principles and practice to guide humane offender rehabilitation. More specifically, Liebling (2004) has defined the “moral performance” of prisons as the quality measure of interpersonal and material treatment that renders imprisonment more or less dehumanizing; how prisoners feel they are being morally treated in and by the prison. Moreover, she has identified that prisons are moral communities where the risk of abuse of power is high and where “normative liberalism” which includes respect for the other, equality, individual dignity, and tolerance is necessary. Although addressing moral rights, Liebling does not provide principles and practice to guide humane offender rehabilitation. In establishing a prison based on human rights the best argument for observing human rights standards is not merely that they are required by international or domestic law but that they actually work better than any known alternative — for offenders, for correctional staff, and for society at large. Compliance with human rights obligations increases, though it does not guarantee, the odds of releasing a more responsible citizen. In essence, a prison environment respectful of human rights is conducive to positive change, whereas an environment of abuse, disrespect, and discrimination has the opposite effect: Treating prisoners with humanity actually enhances public safety. Moreover, through respecting the human rights of prisoners, society conveys a strong message that everyone, regardless of their circumstance, race, social status, gender, religion, and so on, is to be treated with inherent respect and dignity. (Zinger, 2006, p. 127) It is hoped that this article has extended discussion regarding the application of human rights for offenders. In practice, moral rights can be applied to offender rehabilitation in order to meet the World Health Organization criteria to justify compulsory treatment in that: (1) participants' rights are protected by the Drug Court and any restraints on freedom are rationally justified and (2) humane

treatment is provided by the CDTCC to support physical, social, and psychological well-being. Both offender rights and well-being are supported by therapeutic jurisprudence. Moral rights are supplemented by social and legal rights. Social rights are those positive and negative rights that are guaranteed by corrections, as articulated in international and national corrections standards. Legal rights are prescribed by particular laws through international instruments, laws that Australia is obliged to follow in treating offenders with dignity and respect and in providing rehabilitation opportunities that meet their individual needs. Acknowledgement A service is only as good (or humane) as its staff. The authors wish to acknowledge the motivation and skills of CDTCC staff who have led by example in the drug treatment and rehabilitation of repeat offenders. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory—Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 16(1), 39−55. Bird, G. (2002). Prisoners of difference. In D. Brown, & M. Wilkie (Eds.), Prisoners as citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons (pp. 65−77). Sydney: The Federation Press. Birgden, A. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and “good lives”: A rehabilitation framework for corrections. Australian Psychologist, 37(3), 180−186. Birgden, A. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and responsivity: Finding the will and the way in offender rehabilitation. Crime, Psychology & Law, 10(3), 283−296. Birgden, A. (2008a). A compulsory drug treatment program for offenders in Australia: Therapeutic jurisprudence implications. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 30, 367−389. Birgden, A. (2008b). Offender rehabilitation: A normative framework for forensic psychologists. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 15(3), 1−19. Boldt, R. C. (1998). Rehabilitative punishment and the drug treatment court movement. Washington University Law Quarterly, 76, 1205−1306. Casey, S., Day, A., Howells, K., & Ward, T. (2007). Assessing suitability for offender rehabilitation: Development and validation of the Treatment Readiness Questionnaire. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 34(11), 1427−1440. Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center Bill NSW. (2004). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/NSWBills.nsf/ 9872bbafac36d0e3ca256a02001ab066/bbd7f405208cd52eca256e91001d760f/ $FILE/b03-129-42-p02.pdf. Coyle, A. (2009). A human rights approach to prison management: Handbook for prison staff:, Second edition. London: International Center for Prison Studies. Dawes, J. (2002). Institutional perspectives and constraints. In D. Brown, & M. Wilkie (Eds.), Prisoners as citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons (pp. 115−130). Sydney: The Federation Press. Dekker, J., O'Brien, K., & Smith, N. (2010). An evaluation of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program (CDTP): Final report. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Retrieved 31 July, 2010, from http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/ lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L20.pdf/$file/L20.pdf. Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M. D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3−10. Gardner, W., Hoge, S., Bennett, N., Roth, L., Lidz, C., Monahan, J., et al. (1993). Two scales for measuring patients' perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 307−322. Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(3), 38−41. Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. T., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? Federal Probation, 58(1), 72−78. Giffard, C. (2002). International human rights law applicable to prisoners. In D. Brown, & M. Wilkie (Eds.), Prisoners as citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons (pp. 177−195). Sydney: The Federation Press. Gostin, L. O. (1991). Compulsory treatment for drug-dependent persons: Justification for a public health approach to drug dependency. The Millbank Quarterly, 69(4), 561−593. Hall, W. (1997). The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems. Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, 30, 103−120. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2000). Prisons that empower: Neo-liberal governance in Canadian women's prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 40(3), 510−531. Hansard (2004). Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center Bill: First Reading, Second Reading, Motion, Parliament of New South Wales, Hansard & Papers, Legislative Counsel, May 12, 2004. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www. parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20040512006. Kevin, M. (2003). Addressing the use of drugs in prison: Prevalence, nature and context: 2nd collection of a biennial survey of prisoners in New South Wales.Research Publication No. 45. Corporate, Research, Evaluation and Statistics.: NSW

A. Birgden, L. Grant / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (2010) 341–349 Department of Corrective Services Retrieved 10 October 2009 from http://www. dcs.nsw.gov.au/information/research_and_statistics/research_publication/rp045. pdf. Klag, S., O'Callaghan, F., & Creed, P. (2005). The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: An overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, 1777−1795. Liebling, A. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lind, B., Chen, S., Weatherburn, D., & Mattick, R. (2004). The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment in controlling crime: An aggregate level analysis. Retrieved 10 October 2009 from http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/ vwFiles/BB24.pdf/$file/BB24.pdf#target='_blank'. Lippke, E. L. (2002). Toward a theory of prisoners' rights. Ratio Juris, 15(2), 122−145. Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Moral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., et al. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 7−16. Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Institute Review, II(1), 11−29. Mattick, R. P., Breen, C., Kimber, J., & Davoli, M. (2009). Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.:CD002209. McMurran, M., & Priestley, P. (2004). Addressing Substance-Related Offending (ASRO): A structured cognitive–behavioral program for drug users in probation and prison services. In B. Reading, & M. Weegman (Eds.), Group psychotherapy and addiction (pp. 194−210). London: Whurr. McSweeney, T., Stevens, A., Hunt, N., & Turnbull, P. J. (2007). Twisting arms or a helping hand? Assessing the impact of “coerced” and comparable “voluntary” drug treatment options. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 470−490. Murphy, T., & Whitty, N. (2007). Risk and human rights in UK prison governance. British Journal of Criminology, 47(5), 798−816. National Institute on Drug Abuse (2006). Guidelines for drug abuse in criminal justice populations: A research-based guide. : National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Oei, T. I. (2005). The SOV Regulation. A new criminal code regulation measured against the behavioral sciences. European Journal of Psychiatry, 19, 69−77. Parhar, K., Wormith, J., Derkzen, D., & Beauregard, A. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1109−1135. Petry, N. M. (2000). A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical setting. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58, 9−25. Rempel, M., & DeStephano, C. (2002). Predictors of engagement in court mandated treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33(4), 87−124. Sanson, A., Montgomery, B., Gault, U., Gridley, H., & Thomson, D. (1995). Punishment and behavior change: An APS position paper. Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society Ltd. Schopp, R. F. (1993). Therapeutic jurisprudence and conflicts among values in mental health law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 31−45. Seddon, T. (2007). Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: Conceptual, ethical and criminological issues. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(3), 269−285. Shearer, R. A., & Ogan, G. D. (2002). Voluntary participation and treatment resistance in substance abuse treatment programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 31−45. Standard guidelines for corrections in Australia: Revised. (2004). Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/docs/corrservs/Standard_Guidelines_2004.pdf.

349

Stevens, A., Berto, D., Heckmann, W., Kerschl, V., Oeuvray, K., Van Ooyen, M., et al. (2005). Quasi-compulsory treatment of drug dependent offenders: An international literature review. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, 269−283. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale. Tyler, T. R. (1996). The psychological consequences of judicial procedures: Implications for civil commitment hearings. In D. B. Wexler, & B. J. Winick (Eds.), The law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 3−15). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Tyler, T. R. (2010). Legitimacy in corrections. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 127−134. Tyler, T., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. United Nations. (1977). Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 3ae6b36e8.html. United Nations. (1990). Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48abd5740.html. Vinson, T. (1982). Wilful obstruction: The frustration of prison reform. Sydney: Metheun Australia. Wanberg, K. W., & Milkman, H. B. (2006). Criminal conduct and substance abuse treatment strategies for self improvement and change: Pathways to responsible living, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ward, T. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises and problems. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(5), 513−528. Ward, T., & Birgden, A. (2007). Human rights and clinical correctional practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 628−643. Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10(3), 243−257. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), 125−143. Wexler, D. B. (1993). Therapeutic jurisprudence and changing conceptions of legal scholarship. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11(1), 17−29. Wexler, D. B. (1996). Applying the law therapeutically. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 5, 179−186. Wexler, D. B. (1999). The development of therapeutic jurisprudence: From theory to practice. Revista Juridica University of Puerto Rico, 68(3), 691−705. Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (1996). Introduction. In D. B. Wexler, & B. J. Winick (Eds.), The law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. xvii−xx). Durham, NC: Carolina University Press. Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/3/. Winick, B. J. (1992). On autonomy: Legal and psychological perspectives. Villanova Law Review, 37, 1705−1777. Winick, B. J. (1996). The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study: Legal and therapeutic implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(1), 137−166. Winick, B. J. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 184−206. Winick, B. J. (2003). The judge's role in encouraging motivation to change. In B. J. Winick, & D. B. Wexler (Eds.), Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts (pp. 181−188). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Zinger, I. (2006). Human rights compliance and the role of external prison oversight. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 48(2), 127−140.