At Positive Adjustments you will receive the best care available. We make it our priority to offer the best personalized care to each of our clients. Research shows that our unique philosophy is second to none when it comes to real results for the recovery of yourself or your loved ones. Positive Adjustments sets the standard in the field of addiction recovery. We are constantly improving our substance abuse treatment programs and increasing positive results for each patient.
(The above information was obtained from the National Institute of Drug Abuse website).
You may find some of these qualities in another treatment program, but you'll find all of them at Positive Adjustments.
COMMUNITY ACTION REGARDING CRIME-RELATED SUBSTANCE ABUSE
There’s consensus that crime-related substance abuse is a definite thorn in the side of law enforcement and legal authorities and for a time, the creation of comprehensive drug courts seemed to be the best answer. However, their overhead placed a financial burden on the legal system and in recent years, federal subsidies have dried up, resulting in the cutting back or elimination of these taxpayer funded programs. It’s been established that court-ordered substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offender recidivism rates. What’s been left wanting is an effective economical alternative to the establishment of drug courts.
Stand alone probation is ineffective for substance abuse offenders. Repeated studies have shown that people that abuse drugs and alcohol have a thought process that deviates from the norm, and that unless this is arrested through treatment based on sound principles, they will continue to return to the legal system at a much higher rate than their non-using peers. The reason, according to Judge Marion F. Edwards of the Louisiana Fifth Court of Appeals, is that “most offenders come into our courts with a very poor self-image. They have successfully manipulated their families, their friends, and the “system” for most of their lives. Manipulation is the one thing they do well. It is difficult to make them face these realities and begin the process of change, without a cognitive intervention.”[i]
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority[ii]
In this study, substance abuse offenders were found to violate their probation at a rate twice that of their non-using peers and 60 percent more likely to commit another crime while on probation. Following up on some 3,000 probationers over a 4-year period, researchers found that probation monitoring “did little to deter chemical dependent offenders; however, programs that included a therapeutic community component with extended aftercare did reduce the chances of recidivism.” What’s more, it found that the four year recidivism rate for substance abuse offenders undergoing treatment was eight percent less than that for non-substance abusing offenders, suggesting that the latter could also profit from aggressive therapeutic intervention. But the big news unearthed in this study is in the comparison of substance abuse offenders undergoing treatment versus those that do not get treatment. Those that completed treatment had a recidivism rate of 12 percent at year one and 37 percent at year four, while those not treated had a 27 percent recidivism rate at year one and 53 percent at year four. Or in other words, an effective treatment program has the effect of reducing substance abuse re-offense by some 14 percent overall and reduces the substance abuse re-offender rate by over 40 percent initially and 70 percent by year four over those not treated. These numbers reflect people who have gone on to become responsible citizens—no longer engaged in behaviors that burden law enforcement officers and the legal system.
Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission[iii]
The commission’s study results over a three year period were similar to that of the Illinois study. Only 27 percent of treated offenders were incarcerated after three years versus 38 percent of the non-treated offenders; again an 11 percent reduction in re-offenses overall and an improvement by some 70 percent when compared to non-treated offenders.
IS TREATMENT COST EFFECTIVE
California Treatment Outcome Project[iv]
After a thorough review of 43 California substance abuse treatment providers, researchers concluded that “even without considering the direct value to clients of improved health and quality of life, allocating taxpayer dollars to substance abuse may be a wise investment. On average, substance abuse treatment costs $1,583 and is associated with a monetary benefit to society of $11, 487, representing a greater than 7:1 ratio of benefits to costs. These benefits were primarily because of reduced costs of crime and increased employment earnings.”
Washington State Institute for Public Policy[v]
This agency found that $1.00 spent on community based drug treatment, had a Return of Investment of $18.52 in benefits to society, and concluded that substance abuse treatment is more effective than prison or other non-therapeutic measures.
“Studies have shown that comprehensive drug treatment works. It not only reduces drug use but also curtails criminal behavior and recidivism. Recent studies show it is actually less expensive for communities to treat drug-abusing offenders than to let them sit in jail or prison. It is estimated that every dollar invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of $4 to $7 in reduced drug-related crimes. Savings for some outpatient programs can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.”
WHAT KIND OF TREATMENT IS THE BEST?
There is no magic bullet in treating substance abuse offenders, and Judge Edwards relates that the most effective programs include a multivariate approach that leans heavily on cognitive-behavioral therapy as its primary cornerstone. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is based on the theory that most emotional and behavioral reactions are learned and that new ways of reacting and behaving can be learned. This approach focuses on teaching clients skills that help them recognize and reduce relapse risks, maintain abstinence, and enhance self-efficacy.
Studies show that court-mandated drug treatment is effective when the alternative to completing treatment is incarceration. “Overall, there is substantial evidence that individuals who undergo treatment mandated by the criminal justice system do as well or better than voluntary clients.” i In communities such as Salt Lake City, the difficulty in boiling down performance into hard statistics by agency has been that each agency is responsible to a wide variety courts, who in turn have dictated diverse levels of treatment—or no treatment at all; making it cost prohibitive to do intense studies which reflect what is already known—that drug treatment programs are effective in reducing criminal recidivism. As more local courts subscribe to the Utah Model for Court-Ordered Recovery and become more consistent in their sentencing, such studies may become economically feasible and we hypothesize that results from the Utah Model will rival that of the drug courts—without placing a financial burden on the community.
WHAT IS THE UTAH MODEL FOR COURT-ORDERED RECOVERY?
Available studies of Court-Ordered Outpatient Treatment Programs are based on reducing the taxpayer burden by selecting the most cost effective modality of substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration and study results warrant treatment as the first choice in lowering recidivism rates. However, in these studies, the cost of monitoring and treatment remains a taxpayer burden. On the other hand, the Utah Model for Court-Ordered Recovery has evolved as a unique experiment that places the entire cost of monitoring and treatment on the perpetrator instead of victimizing the public once for suffering the offense and then once again for paying for treatment and monitoring. We believe the Utah Model rightly puts the responsibility for rehabilitation on the perpetrator, and his or her financial commitment incentivizes their personal investment in learning the necessary skills to lead a drug free lifestyle. The Utah Model is the better model to probation or incarceration because it uses the judge’s coercive power to engage substance abuse offenders in treatment. Positive Adjustments works hand in hand with courts and probation officers to address the underlying issues of substance abuse while still holding offenders accountable for their crimes—with the offender paying his or her own way. This is good news for fiscally strapped communities seeking to turn the tide on substance abuse.
WHY POSITIVE ADJUSTMENTS?
In these days of limited budgets, the public continues to demand that law enforcement and judicial staff effectively address the alcohol and drug related offenses that fall under their jurisdiction. As a founding pioneer of the Utah Model for Court Ordered Recovery, Positive Adjustments offers an effective cognitive-behavioral alternative that allows judicial officials to guide offenders back into responsible citizens by making them responsible for bearing the cost of their own treatment. There’s an old adage “that you get what you pay for,” and we believe that’s even more true in the treatment of substance abuse offenders as they pay to incentivize their own participation.
WHAT DOES POSITIVE ADJUSTMENTS OFFER?
Our addiction recovery treatment process includes a psycho-educational model that is rooted in personal empowerment strategies. Our unique approach to addiction recovery is to focus on the root causes of abuse rather than the obvious symptoms of criminal behavior and wasted lives. Anchored in sound cognitive-behavioral techniques, our treatment dynamic empowers individuals to make positive changes to their individual life style, and is embodied in our center’s name—Positive Adjustments.
------------------------------------------------------
[i] Edwards, M.F. (2006). Reduce Recidivism in DUI Offenders: Add a Cognitive-Behavioral Program Component. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review (2006) 15 (1), 10-11. Retrieved from http://moral-reconation-therapy.com/Resources/duimrt.pdf [ii] Huebner, B.M. (Undated). Drug Abuse, Treatment, and Probationer Recidivism. Retrieved from http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Drug%20Abuse%20T... [iii] Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission (2009, July 20). Smart Sentencing. Vol. 1, Iss. 4. Retrieved from http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file/Vol%201%20Issue%204%207.20.09.pdf [iv] Ettner, S. L., Huang, D., Evans, E., Ash, D. R., Hardy, M., Jourabchi, M., Hser, Y. (2006). Benefit‐cost in the California Outcome Project (CalTOP): Does substance abuse treatment ʺpay for itselfʺ? Health Services Research, 41(1), 192‐213, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16430607 [v] Justice Policy Institute (2008). Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf [vi] Volkow, N.D. (2006, Aug 19). [Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse]. Treat the Addict, Cut the Crime Rate. Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800799.html