Women on Probation and Parole: A Feminist Critique of Community Programs and Services

6: Positive Changes for Substance-Centered Women

6 Positive Changes for Substance-Centered Women I became stable and [now I] think things through before I make decisions. [It helped] to be able to talk to someone [the supervising officer] with an objective opinion. kelly, Gender Responsive County Despite long-standing, serious difficulties and limited resources, some substance-centered women did improve their lives and managed to avoid crime. I wanted to know exactly how they turned their lives around. Understanding the part that community supervision played in this process will build the knowledge base for designing effective gender-responsive programs. In this chapter, I continue to examine the lives of substancecentered women, but I focus on why drug-addicted and dependent women take steps to stop drug use and abandon criminal lifestyles. Getting clean is the starting point for women to make other positive changes. Once women stop using drugs, they return to or find sober partners , reconnect with previously estranged law-abiding relatives, and make new friends. A Gender Responsive County mother told a supervising officer that when her daughter gave up drugs, their relationship was renewed, stating that “I really enjoy having her around now that she is not using drugs.” People who previously distanced themselves from drug-using women accept them into their homes and lives once they stop using. the influence of external controls and structure Supervising officers and treatment program staff establish controls that preventwomenfromusingdrugs.Fromthewomen’sperspective,frequent drug testing and regular appointments with the supervising officers—the [ 110 ] outcomes in the two counties norm in Gender Responsive County—promote this sort of control. Julie described how random drug testing affected her: I never knew when I had to come in, so I had to be ready every day. I got into the good habit of routinely calling in and being prepared. Probation gave me boundaries. Crossing that line would get me in trouble again. Laura and Joanne, also in Gender Responsive County, made similar statements . Laura told the interviewer that random urine tests and required appointments with the supervising officer “enabled me to deal with my addiction, to face reality.” Joanne said that after repeated positive tests for methamphetamine use, the Intensive Drug Treatment Program helped her the most, starting with thirty days in the work release center. She explained: It’s kept me clean and made me organize my time better, given me tools to use that I didn’t have before, and put structure back in my life, and taught organization of my time, planning, and structure. Court-ordered intensive treatment similarly affected a Traditional County woman, who told the interviewer: “I’d be on the streets doing drugs still. I’d be dead. It’s very structured. If I thought I’d get away with using I would go ahead and use. This structure kept me off of them.” the sequence of positive changes Along with promoting treatment and introducing controls, supervising officers hinder drug use by directing women to live in jail, the work release center, a residential treatment facility, or a new community. These living arrangements create physical distance from people who use and provide drugs. In Gender Responsive County, supervising officers commonly force changes in women’s support networks. This is accomplished by rejecting women’s housing arrangements, restricting work to settings where no alcohol is served, and prohibiting association with individuals involved in crime. For example, an officer denied Kristen’s request for her significant other, also a drug user, to visit her in jail. The officer told Kristen to find associates unconnected to her substance-abusing past. She also ordered Changes for Substance-Centered Women [ 111 ] her to quit her bartending job and find work at a place that did not serve alcohol. In Traditional County, officers also directed women to stay away from people who used drugs or broke the law. In fact, not associating with criminals is a typical prohibition for parolees and probationers. Despite some county similarities, Gender Responsive County case notes more often describe prohibitions against women’s living arrangements, work settings , and associations. This difference results in part from Traditional County’s tendency to supervise at a limited level. Limited supervision dramatically decreases attention to women’s associates, work settings, and living arrangements. Women also take their own steps to distance themselves from people who break the law. For instance, after Cheryl completed substance...