U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Competing Value Premises for the Provision of Drug Treatment to Probationers

NCJ Number
164080
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 42 Issue: 4 Dated: (October 1996) Pages: 574- 592
Author(s)
D E Duffee; B E Carlson
Date Published
1996
Length
19 pages
Annotation
Drug treatment for probationers is examined in terms of the shortage of treatment services, who should benefit first from the available services, the unresolved conflicts among competing value premises for allocation of services, and the implications for probationers of each premise.
Abstract
A common problem currently experienced nationwide by probation agencies trying to place probationers into drug treatment programs is the shortage of openings and the existence of waiting lists for program entry. The discussion of how to set priorities among the claims or needs of various groups for treatment can and must be informed by empirical data regarding the nature of treatment subgroups, the amount of treatment available, the relative effectiveness of different treatments on types of clients, and related issues. Much research is needed before reliable answers to many of these questions will exist. Nevertheless, a consensus exists that without treatment, probationers cannot control their behavior, regardless of sanctions. Value premises include deservingness, amenability to treatment, social harm, and capacity of the supervising agency. It appears that probationers would fare better under three of these value premises underlying an explicit public policy than they do in the absence of an explicit policy. In the meantime, it would appear that probationers would fare better than they do now relative to nonoffenders if treatability or social harm were the controlling issue. They would fare better than now against inmates or parolees if deservingness were the issue. They would be served before inmates under the premises of desert, social harm, and treatability. 58 references (Author abstract modified)

Downloads

No download available

Availability