Identifying Client-Level Indicators of Recovery Among DUI, Criminal Justice, and Non–Criminal Justice Treatment Referrals

Abstract

This study is part of a mandated treatment outcome study on all government-funded programs in a rural state. This naturalistic study included a sample of 888 clients who served between July 2003 and June 2004 in a state-funded treatment for substance misuse and were included in a follow-up interview 12 months after treatment. To examine differences in treatment outcome, clients were examined in three referral conditions: (1) driving under the influence (DUI) referral; (2) criminal justice referral; and (3) non–criminal justice referral. While more DUI referrals reported alcohol use at 12-month follow-up, there were no other differences between referral conditions. Instead, controlling for factors like age, gender, and race, recovery intent at intake, and 12-step program participation at follow-up predicted positive treatment outcomes, while persistent depression predicted negative outcomes. This study of clients in state-funded treatment for substance misuse provides additional evidence that referral condition does not predispose clients toward positive or negative outcomes. Secondly, client-level factors related to recovery practices and intent to reduce or stop using substances may need closer attention in the clinical process. Study limitations included data being collected by clinicians during intake, which may have resulted in reliability questions about how data are entered.

Keywords:

• recovery indicators
• recovery intent
• outcome indicators
• treatment outcomes
• naturalistic environment

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Kentucky Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse under a contract with the University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol Research.

Notes

¹ Treatment can be briefly and usefully defined as a planned, goal-directed change process, of necessary quality, appropriateness, and conditions (endogenous and exogenous), which is bound (by culture, place, time, etc.) and can be categorized into professional-based, tradition-based, mutual help–based (AA, NA, and the like), and self-help (“natural recovery”) models. There are no unique models or techniques used with substance users—of whatever type—which aren't also used with nonsubstance users. In the West, with the relatively new ideology of “harm reduction” and the even newer quality of life (QOL) treatment–driven model there are now a new set of goals in addition to those derived from/associated with the older tradition of abstinence-driven models. Editor's note.

^a

^b

* p < .01;

** p < .001.

^a

^b

* p < .01;

** p < .001.

* p < .01;

** p < .001.

** p < .001.