52 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 64 Number 2 Training the Substance Abuse Specialist

Sam Torres, Ph.D., California State University, Long Beach Robert M. Latta, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Los Angeles

IN “SELECTING THE SUBSTANCE buddy in the joint…We hustled together sources, especially the therapeutic commu- Abuse Specialist” (Torres & Latta, 2000), we and scored dope together. So, I let down nity modality of drug treatment. An effec- describe the various probation and parole my defenses and became really human tive strategy also depends on specialized drug officer typologies found in the literature and toward the guy, and I got screwed… caseloads. Once the appropriate officers are conclude that the authoritative traits needed When you’re a dope fiend there’s no selected for the drug specialist position, rel- to effectively supervise substance abusing of- rules, no regulations, no system of buddy- evant training must be provided. fenders are most likely to be found in the law- buddy or friendship that counts…He enforcer, “make-him-do-it” style. The non- thought like a dope fiend and the cardi- Developing a Substance-Abuse directive, social-worker approach, while well nal idea here is to hustle who you have to Training Program meaning, only reinforces manipulative, game- and get by, so long as you can keep scor- The Central District of California (CDC) has playing behavior in the substance abusing ing. Dope fiends are always conning each 20 years experience with the substance abuse offender. Traits exhibited by substance abus- other…And the same thing that happened specialist position. A series of articles in Fed- ers—such as impulsivity, sociopathy or psy- to me in the joint happens all the time in eral Probation (Torres: 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, chopathy (a cluster of problematic and high the streets. Don’t ever trust any dope fiend; 1997b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, & 2000) outlined risk traits), depression, low energy, egocen- they’ll turn on you every time for a five- in considerable detail the philosophy and tricity, low self-esteem, anxiety, and a low dollar fix (Rettig, 1977, p. 88-90). strategy developed in the CDC for supervis- tolerance for frustration—in combination, do ing substance-abusing offenders, using a ra- In view of the personality traits and be- not readily respond to the disease model ap- tional choice model rather than the more haviors exhibited by substance-abusing of- proach. Pathological lying, irresponsible be- common disease model perspective. Torres fenders, we have emphasized that the pro- havior, lack of empathy, callousness, and will- (1996a, p.22) reports: bation officer who is a substance abuse spe- ingness to become engaged in a diverse range cialist should possess authoritative person- In summary, I conclude people have the of criminal behavior requires the firm style ality traits such as dominance, imposing de- ability to choose whether or not to con- of an authoritative officer. Rettig (1977) per- meanor, and decisiveness. These desirable tinue their substance-abusing behavior, haps best summarizes the substance abusing authoritative traits were also differentiated even while I acknowledge that disparate mentality in the autobiography, Manny: A from the less desirable authoritarian traits economic, social, psychological, and bio- Criminal-Addict’s Story. In the book, Manny, like harshness and a dictatorial attitude. logical conditions place individuals at a while serving time at New York’s infamous Needless to say, excellent organizational higher or lower risk of substance abuse Sing Sing prison, comments on the “dope skills are important in probation and parole and criminality. For the probation officer, fiend mentality,” when Raul, his closest friend generally, but even more so with a substance the most effective approach in supervis- in the “joint” inadvertently sets him up for a abuse caseload, due to its high level of activ- ing the substance-abusing offender is to “hit.” Manny says: ity. The probation or parole office seeking set explicit limits, to inform the proba- “I should of known anyway. You see, an effective supervision program to reduce tioner/parolee of the consequences for Raul was a classic of the dope fiend men- the incidence of drug use and new criminal noncompliance, and to be prepared to tality. Man, I can’t tell you that too many conduct will establish a definitive office phi- enforce the limits when and if violations times. You can’t trust dope fiends…See, losophy and policy. Our approach in Los occur. The preferred course of action for when you let down your defenses even Angeles combines a high level of surveillance many, if not most, users is placement in for a minute.…I forgot that Raul was a to monitor abstinence from drugs and alco- a therapeutic community, with credible dope fiend. For me Raul was a pal and a hol with a heavy reliance on community re- threats and coercion if necessary. December 2000 THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SPECIALIST 53

As senior U.S. probation officer (USPO) curred a week later on May 6, 1999, and the •Historical development of CDC’s total drug specialists began retiring, and in antici- actual training commenced on June 9, 1999. abstinence approach. CDC struggled to pation of further retirements, the chief U.S. The academic component of the development find a balance between excessive probation officer (CUSPO) concluded that program occurred on consecutive Wednes- disparity in handling drug aftercare there was an urgent need for a substance abuse days at the Roybal Federal Building in down- violations and a rigid approach that specialist development training program. In town Los Angeles. Attendance at all sessions allowed little discretion to consider early 1999, the CUSPO selected a committee was mandatory for the participants. individual circumstances. comprised of the deputy chief U.S. probation • The roots of CDC policy in the Classical officer (DCUSPO), the two assistant chief Academic Component: tradition of criminology. deputy probation officers (ACDUSPO), the Program Curriculum substance abuse coordinator (SAC), and the As noted above, the development program •Disagreement with the popular notion aftercare coordinator (AC), to develop a was divided into academic and experiential/ that addiction is a disease. training program for officers interested in on-the-job training (OJT) components. The • The legal perspective of the problem of applying for this specialized position. It selection and training processes occurred si- illegal drug use. should be noted that the substance-abuse spe- multaneously. In the OJT component, par- cialist position in the CDC has historically ticipating officers supervised a drug caseload • The protection of the community and been a grade-13 position (the USPO journey- for a three-month period. Prior to the first the offender through a total abstinence man position has been a grade 12). Therefore, session of the academic component, all par- approach, the CDC’s primary goal as it it was anticipated that the prospect of pro- ticipating officers were provided with a copy relates to drug abuse. motion to a senior USPO position with an of the classroom training schedule. All par- •Implications for caseload management increase in pay would prove attractive to ticipants attended the academic component and casework implementation of the many line officers seeking the position, would together during the month of June, 1999. total abstinence approach, the offender provide a greater challenge, or both. Once the However, the participants were divided into is responsible for his/her drug use, CDC academic portion of the program had been two separate groups for the experiential com- requires action on every incident of drug established it was determined that the SAC ponents and the participatory forums. Group use, offenders are to be carefully would conduct and coordinate all phases of one met in July through September, and structured regarding total abstinence the training program and evaluation process. group two met from October to December, expectations, and rapid detection In April, 1999, the CUSPO distributed the 1999. Each participant received a packet of through a sophisticated drug testing following announcement to all officer staff in training materials along with the Federal Ju- program. supervision services: dicial Center’s publication “Supervising Sub- stance Abusers,” participants manual, lesson •Review of Federal Judicial Center studies Our office is introducing a substance plans, and self-study packet. The academic of aftercare programs. abuse specialist development program to training component consisted of four mod- assist in filling vacancies and preparing •Probation officer styles as they relate to ules and three “participatory forums” which for future openings. Any interested of- the philosophical orientation of the are described below. ficer may apply. The program will include CDC. academic as well as practical experience. Module I: Central District Substance • Knowledge and skills that are essential to The practical experience involves direct Abuse Philosophy the substance abuse specialist: individual assessment by a substance The primary purpose of this module was to abuse team who will identify areas for •Handling confrontation effec- present in detail the CDC’s philosophy re- development. Selected applicants will be tively. garding substance abuse and supervising of- required to work for a period of two to fenders. New USPO drug specialists must •Treating offenders firmly, profes- four months with a drug caseload at the understand not only the policy of the district, sionally, and with respect. branch office where the applicant is pres- but also the underlying rationale for our spe- ently assigned. Level of proficiency will •Identifying a wide range of cific approach. This module also included a be evaluated. The number of applications sophisticated manipulations. discussion of the ideal psychological orienta- received will aid in determining the se- tion and temperament of the substance abuse • Setting limits and sticking by lection process. Again, any officer with specialist, and required organizational skills. those limits. an interest should apply. Submit your This training module included a discussion name by April 28, 1999 (CDC, memo- •Having strong organizational skills of the following issues: randum, April 21, 1999). and the ability to set priorities. •Establishing a specific philosophy is Within one week, 32 officers had indicated •Being diligent in field note often problematic because officers an interest in participating in the substance recording. subscribe to differing philosophies and abuse specialist development program. The often hold fiercely to their positions. •Recognizing that drug caseload is initial memo announcing the program was like being on a treadmill. distributed on April 21st and the list of the 32 •The approach/strategy utilized in the CDC candidates was announced on April 29. A has proven effective in deterring drug use •Recognizing high potential for meeting to discuss the selection process oc- and preventing new criminal conduct. burnout. 54 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 64 Number 2

•Realizing that colleagues will Dual Diagnosis (DD) problems: usually not be sympathetic to your and the Substance-Abuser •Physical signs. workload because “that’s why you •Definition and overview of the dual get the big bucks.” •Emotional/Psychological signs. diagnosis disorder. •Recognizing that you will make a • Social/Interpersonal signs. •Clinical data on DD. difference in the lives of some • Legal problems. offenders but most long-term • Severity of adjustment problems users will continue to use drugs. incurred by DD offenders. •Supervision problems (stalls, late, no shows, diluted tests). •Acquiring a high degree of •Identification and Evaluation. knowledge and awareness of • The positive drug test: what does it • Federal Judicial Center Videotape: community for substance abusing mean? Substance Abuse and Mental Disorder persons. Concurrent Illness. • Characteristic responses by offender to the “dirty” test and probation officer Module II: Interviewing/Structuring •Treatment and Supervision Strategies. and Assessment response: •Assessing potential danger and crisis This module focused on interviewing, struc- •Lie or downplay extent of intervention. turing, and assessing the substance-abusing problem. offender. This session addressed dual diagno- • “Strengths approach:” Accentuate •Mitigate or blame others. sis treatment modalities and initial referral positive and establish support system. strategies. As in the other modules, the train- •Challenge drug testing methods or •Addressing non-compliance: Incremen- ing was conducted by substance abuse spe- procedures. tal sanctions. cialists with over 20 years of experience and •Respond emotionally or angrily. included the following topics: • Fairness, consistency, and availability. •Treatment intervention strategies: least •Beliefs and philosophies about chemical •Offender perspective: Presentation by restrictive to most restrictive. dependency. 53-year-old dual diagnosis offender discussing supervision and treatment •Treatment modality should fit the •Red flags of abuse. interventions that have been effective. offender and the drug of abuse. •Risk issues and liability. • Factors to consider in determining • Focus of the addict/alcoholic: “getting Module III: Supervision of Substance treatment or punishment. over” on the PO. Abusers, Problems, and Violations •Immediate response is critical. The primary purpose of this module was to •List of substance abuser characteristics. discuss specific issues in the supervision of • 12-step programs: the 12 traditions of •Importance of consistency and meaning substance abusers, unique problems, and the AA/NA what you say. types of violations that a drug specialist can •Rational recovery program. anticipate. Treatment modalities and refer- •Testing for illegal and legal drugs. ral strategies in response to a violation were •Counseling: private versus contractual. •Collection of an offender’s drug/alcohol also discussed by two senior USPO drug spe- •Halfway-house participation. history data. cialists. This module included: •Combining treatment modalities as a •The drug aftercare case summary. •Re-examination of philosophical response to violation. approach and differentiated between •Phases of testing. free-will and disease model of addiction. •USPO responsibility to know programs • Specific gravity and stalls. available in community. •Examination of terms such as relapse, •The drug program intake interview. disease, caused, “crying for help,” •Implementing court intervention in compassion. response to violation(s). •Consequences for drug aftercare violations (stalls, no-shows, positives, •Confrontation versus enabling. •Court modification: should be alcohol). clear and specific. •Case studies for discussion: example of •Community Correctional Center versus high risk cases. •When modification is refused by therapeutic community placement. offender, what does USPO do? •Job burnout versus job satisfaction. •Importance of random drug testing. •Citation or warrant decision. •Primary goal of supervision: protection of community. •Case scenarios and recommendations. •Phases of substance abuse testing. •Dos and don’ts. •Indicators or “red flags” that signal •Don’t assume an offender is clean December 2000 THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SPECIALIST 55

and sober because he or she has •Centralized laboratory. overload, some officers use the supervision completed a drug testing program folder, which contains the judgment and •On-site instrumentation based. in another district or unit. commitment order, conditions, district map, •On-site non-instrument based. monthly supervision reports, USPO’s busi- •Never advise an offender of a ness card, appointment and map to the after- positive test in their home. •Tips for using non-instrumental care agency, firearms restriction form, and a testing devices. •Test suspended cases on a surprise list of various community resources. The su- basis. The above topics were presented during pervision folder is individualized and may the academic component; however this out- contain more or less information depending •Don’t negotiate on the collection line does not reflect the considerable detail on the officer. It is bound and given to the date of any surprise test. and elaboration outlined by each of the pre- offender at the end of the initial interview. •Never negotiate sanctions with a senters. For example, PharmChem gave a de- Officers all discussed what the checklist violator. tailed explanation of the sweat patch, as well should include and what the folder should as discussing who can’t wear the patch. In contain. Lastly, the first participatory forum •Don’t tell an offender a warrant addition, the presenters pointed out the ad- addressed the issue of drug aftercare contract has been issued. vantages and disadvantages of the sweat patch vendors and what types of problems might •Don’t make idle threats. Say what versus urine drug testing. Non-instrumental be encountered. Topics included prompt in- you mean, and mean what you hand-held testing devices were also covered take interviews and expeditious notification say. in detail. At the beginning of the PharmChem of positive test results and/or no shows. presentation the participants submitted a list The second participatory forum asked of- •Don’t allow an offender’s person- of questions, and these were addressed by the ficers to differentiate between the complex- ality to influence your decisions. presenters throughout the day. ity and problems associated with a drug ver- •Don’t let an offender’s praise sus a regular supervision caseload. The pur- influence your decisions. Participatory Forums pose of this exercise was to move to consider The experiential component of the substance the scope and nuances of supervising a drug Module IV: Substance Abuse Testing abuse coordinator training included “partici- caseload and what it might mean to be a drug and Drug Trends patory forums” in which USPOs-participants specialist for most of one’s career. At the last applied some of the information obtained participatory forum, USPOs discussed further The segment on substance abuse testing and from the academic component and also dis- the various forms that must be handled by drug trends was presented by PharmChem cussed problems and issues arising from their the SAC. Other topics were Oral Fluid Test- laboratory staff and included the following experiences in supervising a drug caseload. ing Technologies and Sexually Transmitted issues: For example, in participatory forum number Diseases. The participatory forum concluded •Drug testing procedures/specimen one, officers received training with forms that with a discussion of a self-evaluation form collection. are used by the drug specialist. Later, the par- that each USPO participant was required to ticipants were divided into two groups with complete at the end of the development train- •Precautions against adulteration. each group being required to present viola- ing program. • Laboratory procedures tion letters and recommendations that they had made. These were then discussed by the Experiential Component: •Emit screening. entire group. Supervising a Substance-Abuse •Gas chromatography/mass Completing court letters on special drug Caseload for Three Months spectrometry. aftercare violations and making recommen- Following the academic component of the de- dations promotes an understanding of the velopment program, participants switched •Electronic results reporting. various treatment options and sanctions that caseloads with the substance-abuse specialist •Quality control. a USPO has available. Types of drug aftercare in their units or were assigned active drug test- violations were also discussed as part of this ing cases and obtained three months of first- • Federal probation routine drug test training exercise. In another exercise, the hand experience supervising a substance abuse panel. group was again divided to discuss the po- caseload. During this period, participant’s •Adulteration testing. tential use of an initial interview checklist. An caseload management was overseen by the sub- initial interview checklist is used by some of- stance-abuse specialist (if one was present in •On-site testing—how does it work? ficers to assure that they have adequately re- the particular branch office), the supervisor, •PharmChem sweat patch & drug viewed the major items. Officers may choose and the SAC. To monitor the activities of the detection in sweat: How does it work? to use both a checklist and a supervision participants, a form was developed to be com- folder. It has been recognized by some offic- pleted by the end of each month. The monthly •Patch versus urine: window of detection. ers that the initial interview covers an array statistics form compiled the number of ac- •Sweat patch: court challenges. of information, conditions, and instructions tivities and reports completed by each par- and, therefore, it is almost impossible for any ticipant in the substance abuse specialist pro- •Using non-instrumental hand-held one offender to absorb all that is covered. To gram. There were 10 types of activities and testing devices. address this initial interview information reports compiled for each participant. These 56 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 64 Number 2

included the number of initial interviews con- 2. Participant is available and approach- sion of the training program, the SAC and AC ducted, summaries dictated, violations re- able. reviewed the various evaluation forms and ports completed, court appearances, number conducted an initial ranking based on the 3. Participant demonstrates “people skills.” of positive drug tests submitted, total num- SUSPO’s rating forms. The second level of ber of cases being supervised, and the num- 4. I am able to express my opinion and feel ranking incorporated the participants’ self- ber of delinquent monthly reports. Item 11 heard by the participant. evaluations and support staff assessments. In on the form allowed the participant to include the third and final step of the ranking pro- 5. Participant communicates directions a comment(s) on any extraordinary activity cess the SAC, based on evaluation scores and clearly so I know what is expected of me. which occurred during the period. assessment criteria, listed each participant 6. Revisions of court letters are edited in from 1 to 27. This list was then presented to Supervisor Evaluation such a manner that I can read and the chief U.S. probation officer (CUSPO). The At the conclusion of the experiential compo- understand them without causing any SAC also assessed the need for a substance nent, each supervisor was asked to rate the delay in my work. abuse specialist in each area office and iden- participate on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being tified vacancies. 7. Participant responds in a timely manner poor and 10 being excellent. Supervisors were to any questions I have regarding asked to evaluate the USPO on personal rela- Conclusion assignment of cases. tions, professional skills (as related to super- Within one week of announcing and intro- vising a drug caseload), caseload manage- 8. Participant treats me with respect. ducing a substance abuse specialist develop- ment, time management, and professional ment program to assist in filling vacancies, 9. Participant treats offenders with respect. development. 32 U.S. probation officers within the district 10. Participant gives me positive recognition had applied for the “development program.” Self-Evaluation and/or feedback. Once the list was established, the district At the end of both the academic and experi- moved expeditiously to commence the actual 11. Participant possesses a good sense of ential components of the development pro- training program which was broken down humor. gram, participants were required to complete into two separate components, academic and a self-evaluation form and to detail what they 12. Participant models the character and experiential. The academic component con- had learned about personal relations, profes- work ethic he/she expects from others. tained four all-day modules which included sional skills, caseload management, time topics on the district’s substance abuse phi- In addition to rating the participant along management, and professional development, losophy, interview/structuring, assessment, these 5 dimensions, an additional question as related to being a substance-abuse special- dual diagnosis, supervising the substance was posed, “Would you choose to work in the ist. Officers were asked whether, following the abuser, problems/violations, as well as a pre- same office with the participant?” Support training, they were now prepared to assume sentation by the Pharmchem Laboratory on staff responded to the question and then were a substance-abuse caseload assignment. If so, testing methodologies and drug trends. As asked to “please comment.” At the bottom of they were then asked to list their first three part of the experiential component three the form was a blank space where support staff area office choices. Participants could also “participatory forums” were conducted, were to indicate the overall rating given to the check off a box indicating they were interested which allowed the participants to integrate the participant. in becoming a substance abuse specialist, “but concepts that were presented in the academic not at this time” or to simply check that they Selection Process modules with their experiences from the OJT were “no longer interested in becoming a sub- component. The SAC also identified the need At the end of the “substance abuse specialist stance abuse specialist.” for a substance abuse specialist in each office development program,” the participants were and identified vacancies. ranked by the substance abuse coordinator Staff Support Evaluation The experiential or OJT component al- (SAC) with input from the aftercare coordi- In most jurisdictions, support staff have little lowed each participant to have the actual ex- nator (AC). Of the 32 initial applicants, 27 or no input in the evaluation and assessment perience of supervising this type of demand- completed the development program. As part of officer staff for promotion. However, a ing caseload for three months. Each partici- of the assessment process, the SAC sat in on third level of evaluation was established pant was required to maintain and submit initial interviews conducted by all 27 partici- wherein the clerical staff of each office con- monthly statistics on the activities which oc- pants. The SAC then provided a written as- tributed to the assessment of the drug spe- curred. These included initial interviews con- sessment and suggestions for improvement cialist candidates and a specific form was de- ducted, number of case summaries dictated, to each participant, participant’s supervisor, veloped for their evaluation rating and com- violation reports completed, as well as court and ADCUSPO. An attempt was made to ments. Selected support staff evaluated the appearances and other miscellaneous activi- observe a second initial interview to deter- officer-participant on 12 items using a 5 point ties. mine if each participant had improved and/ rating scale, with 5 being outstanding and 1 At the end of the development program, or integrated the suggestions from the SAC’s being below average. The dimensions evalu- considerable input on performance was ob- first assessment. Though time did not permit ated were: tained from supervisors, support staff and the a second observation with all 27 participants, 1. Participant is knowledgeable of office substance abuse coordinator as well as a self- about three quarters of the participants did practices and procedures. evaluation by the participants themselves. receive a second assessment. At the conclu- Based on these combined evaluations, the December 2000 THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SPECIALIST 57

substance abuse coordinator in consultation subscribe to the district’s philosophical orien- Torres, S. (1996b). The use of a credible drug test- with other administrators developed a rank tation. This should result in greater consistency ing program for accountability and interven- order list of the participants to submit to the in carrying out the district’s strategy for super- tion. Federal Probation, 60(4), 18-23. chief probation officer for appointment and vising substance abuse offenders, which in turn promotion. will allow us to continue a practice that has Torres, S. (1997a). An effective supervision strat- egy for substance-abusing offenders. Federal At the writing of this article, the academic been effective in reducing drug use and new and experiential components had concluded criminal conduct in the substance-abusing of- Probation, 61(2), 38-44. and a list ranking of the participants had been fenders under our supervision. It is a strategy Torres, S. (1997b). The substance-abusing offender submitted to the chief U.S. probation officer that we believe serves the best interest of the and the initial interview. Federal Probation, for his consideration. While it is still too early community we are obligated to protect as well 61(4), 11-17. to determine if this development program will as offenders who confront further legal and so- Torres, S. (1998a). Monitoring prescription medi- be effective in selecting officers appropriate for cial consequences if they continue to use and a substance-abuse caseload, we think that, at a abuse drugs and alcohol. cation use among substance-abusing offenders. minimum, we have established objective cri- Federal Probation, 62(1), 11-15. teria and a process that ensures fairness. Fur- References Torres, S. (1998b). A continuum of sanctions for thermore, the classroom and OJT training substance-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, components would seem to provide essential Rettig, R.P. (1977). Manny: A criminal-addict’s 62(2), 36-45. academic training by veteran drug specialists story. Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press, Torres, S. (1999). Early termination: Outdated con- while also permitting the participants to su- Inc. pervise a drug caseload for three months. It is cept in an era of punitiveness. Federal Proba- Torres, S. (1996a). Should corrections treat or pun- tion, 63(1), 35-41. hoped that the development program will help ish substance-abusing criminals? Federal Pro- us select drug specialists who possess a basic Torres, S. & Latta, R.M., (2000). Selecting the sub- bation, 60(3), 18-23. understanding of substance abuse issues and stance specialist. Federal Probation, 64(1), 46-50.