I love your writing and have no intent to criticize the general premise, but provide my own perspective.
Because I occasionally handle criminal cases for friends and family, I have found as a practical matter that judges would happily consider other forms of recovery. AA is just the "go to" because it exists in (nearly) every city and has a significant footprint in the cities with the judges handing down the sentences. Most (but not all) judges have addressed this type of sentence with the attorneys and alternative options could be addressed. I cannot tell you how often the fact that a defendant with means enters a pricey rehab and this (often unauthentic) act persuades the Court to consider a lesser sentence. AA is free, and (often) is viewed as an alternative to a rehabilitation program.
You are more than welcome to disagree, my friend (though I don’t think there’s a big one here). I wholeheartedly believe that sentencing someone to attendance at 12-step meetings is a preferable option over expensive rehabs. AA being free and ubiquitous is definitely why the courts rely on it so heavily (and it’s vastly superior to incarceration).
I just don’t think 12-step meetings should be the only choice (or 12-step/rehab) when there are other free options. The research overwhelmingly suggests that even people who ultimately end up in AA tend to engage more with the program and have better outcomes if they feel they had a choice in attending it. (There are a lot of issues with studying any facet of AA and outcomes in particular, but it also makes logical sense that a feeling of agency over which group someone attends and their investment in that group would be correlated.)
When SMART Recovery and LifeRing also hold online meetings, making them available to anyone (and in-person meetings are in more locations than you might think), offering people options is a no-brainer. It may simply be a matter of judges needing to be aware of those programs and their availability, although I have no idea how that happens. I have a feeling they’re not reading this newsletter ;)
Awe, they should be reading your newsletter. I suppose my point was just that it seems to me to be less of a conscious choice or endorsement of AA by judges, and more of a laziness or unawareness of alternatives. I also think that we both agree that even if the likelihood of the recovery program actually taking hold is small, there is a chance it will work, and a slight chance is better than trying nothing. (I also think that forcing individuals to go through the DUI classes or morgue classes, showing the grizzly results of alcohol related fatalities are less likely to produce results, but Courts still mandate them without a single shred of evidence that they produce positive results.)
To accomplish your task of providing notice of potential alternatives, my thought is that the lists of options should be provided to the people/groups who need to know. Public defender bar association, local bar associations, and criminal attorney bar associations could be sent mass emails/mailings. (I am not volunteering, but it might be a thought for the programs to consider to increase their visibility). State Bars also generally require Addiction CLE (continuing legal education) and I have given the class in the past. Providing the information to State Bar Associations would be quite useful.
Judges are fossils, so it is difficult to rely upon them, but since judges are often elected, there is also the possibility of giving judges this information during the campaign cycle.
Lastly, you putting the information out on your fabulous newsletter could provide the alternatives for individuals with addictions, their friends or families. So maybe your act of espousing the other potential options into the Substack universe could have a ripple-down effect. I read everything you post and your thoughtfulness and compassion should be a tool to "spread the word."
aw, thank you for the kind words. and I agree that it's probably not a conscious endorsement so much as a default/pattern that they don't necessarily think to question.
oh man, i didn't even think about DUI/morgue classes (despite having had to complete one), but you're right--those have even less evidence supporting them. And I definitely think offering AA as an option is better than nothing!
I went to AA meetings for about a year when I stopped drinking. I was more of a tourist than a full participiant. It gave me something to do, if nothing else. I think I would have hated it if it was court-ordered.
I'm a retired substance abuse counselor who worked with mandated alcoholics and addicts my whole career. I agree with your point :
"If you want someone to feel like they’re taking agency in their recovery, you have to give them opportunities to exercise that agency."
You're right about readiness- you can mandate treatment and meetings but your can't mandate choice.
Part of why mandated treatment works is that it's difficult to exercise agency when you're under the influence. I used to know the statistics off the top of my head, but basically, it takes various lengths of time for a person's brain and body to clear from drug and/or alcohol use. Having someone in an environment where they can regain a sense of agency gives them an opportunity to make a choice- an opportunity not usually available unless in some kind of controlled environment. I've seen spectacular successes and failures during my years working in treatment. For the ones who didn't want recovery, I would tell myself that at least they're safe and off the streets while they were there- an opportunity for recovery if they chose it.
Yeah, I can definitely understand how that exposure could yield some openness to recovery that the person might not have otherwise (I often say the best thing rehab did for me was keep me away from alcohol for 30 days). But I also think that some people end up inherently resenting programs they're forced into, so giving them some options to choose from might be more effective and less polarizing.
I love your writing and have no intent to criticize the general premise, but provide my own perspective.
Because I occasionally handle criminal cases for friends and family, I have found as a practical matter that judges would happily consider other forms of recovery. AA is just the "go to" because it exists in (nearly) every city and has a significant footprint in the cities with the judges handing down the sentences. Most (but not all) judges have addressed this type of sentence with the attorneys and alternative options could be addressed. I cannot tell you how often the fact that a defendant with means enters a pricey rehab and this (often unauthentic) act persuades the Court to consider a lesser sentence. AA is free, and (often) is viewed as an alternative to a rehabilitation program.
You are more than welcome to disagree, my friend (though I don’t think there’s a big one here). I wholeheartedly believe that sentencing someone to attendance at 12-step meetings is a preferable option over expensive rehabs. AA being free and ubiquitous is definitely why the courts rely on it so heavily (and it’s vastly superior to incarceration).
I just don’t think 12-step meetings should be the only choice (or 12-step/rehab) when there are other free options. The research overwhelmingly suggests that even people who ultimately end up in AA tend to engage more with the program and have better outcomes if they feel they had a choice in attending it. (There are a lot of issues with studying any facet of AA and outcomes in particular, but it also makes logical sense that a feeling of agency over which group someone attends and their investment in that group would be correlated.)
When SMART Recovery and LifeRing also hold online meetings, making them available to anyone (and in-person meetings are in more locations than you might think), offering people options is a no-brainer. It may simply be a matter of judges needing to be aware of those programs and their availability, although I have no idea how that happens. I have a feeling they’re not reading this newsletter ;)
Awe, they should be reading your newsletter. I suppose my point was just that it seems to me to be less of a conscious choice or endorsement of AA by judges, and more of a laziness or unawareness of alternatives. I also think that we both agree that even if the likelihood of the recovery program actually taking hold is small, there is a chance it will work, and a slight chance is better than trying nothing. (I also think that forcing individuals to go through the DUI classes or morgue classes, showing the grizzly results of alcohol related fatalities are less likely to produce results, but Courts still mandate them without a single shred of evidence that they produce positive results.)
To accomplish your task of providing notice of potential alternatives, my thought is that the lists of options should be provided to the people/groups who need to know. Public defender bar association, local bar associations, and criminal attorney bar associations could be sent mass emails/mailings. (I am not volunteering, but it might be a thought for the programs to consider to increase their visibility). State Bars also generally require Addiction CLE (continuing legal education) and I have given the class in the past. Providing the information to State Bar Associations would be quite useful.
Judges are fossils, so it is difficult to rely upon them, but since judges are often elected, there is also the possibility of giving judges this information during the campaign cycle.
Lastly, you putting the information out on your fabulous newsletter could provide the alternatives for individuals with addictions, their friends or families. So maybe your act of espousing the other potential options into the Substack universe could have a ripple-down effect. I read everything you post and your thoughtfulness and compassion should be a tool to "spread the word."
aw, thank you for the kind words. and I agree that it's probably not a conscious endorsement so much as a default/pattern that they don't necessarily think to question.
oh man, i didn't even think about DUI/morgue classes (despite having had to complete one), but you're right--those have even less evidence supporting them. And I definitely think offering AA as an option is better than nothing!
I just want to thank you for the thoughtful words. My own experiences echo so much that you presented.
Thank you 💛
I went to AA meetings for about a year when I stopped drinking. I was more of a tourist than a full participiant. It gave me something to do, if nothing else. I think I would have hated it if it was court-ordered.
That makes sense; I think mandating attendance turns a lot of people off of AA who might otherwise get something out of it.
I'm a retired substance abuse counselor who worked with mandated alcoholics and addicts my whole career. I agree with your point :
"If you want someone to feel like they’re taking agency in their recovery, you have to give them opportunities to exercise that agency."
You're right about readiness- you can mandate treatment and meetings but your can't mandate choice.
Part of why mandated treatment works is that it's difficult to exercise agency when you're under the influence. I used to know the statistics off the top of my head, but basically, it takes various lengths of time for a person's brain and body to clear from drug and/or alcohol use. Having someone in an environment where they can regain a sense of agency gives them an opportunity to make a choice- an opportunity not usually available unless in some kind of controlled environment. I've seen spectacular successes and failures during my years working in treatment. For the ones who didn't want recovery, I would tell myself that at least they're safe and off the streets while they were there- an opportunity for recovery if they chose it.
Yeah, I can definitely understand how that exposure could yield some openness to recovery that the person might not have otherwise (I often say the best thing rehab did for me was keep me away from alcohol for 30 days). But I also think that some people end up inherently resenting programs they're forced into, so giving them some options to choose from might be more effective and less polarizing.