Rehabilitation Programs for Incarcerated Drug Offenders in Malaysia: Experience-Based Perspectives on Reintegration and Recidivism
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885519894656 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
The Prison Journal
2020, Vol. 100(2) 201 –223
Rehabilitation Programs
© 2019 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
for Incarcerated
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519894656
DOI: 10.1177/0032885519894656
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Drug Offenders in
Malaysia: Experience-
Based Perspectives
on Reintegration and
Recidivism
Phaik Kin Cheah1, N. Prabha Unnithan2,
and Annie Margaret Sandela Raran1
Abstract
This study explores lived experiences of repeat drug offenders in Malaysia,
their reasons for recidivating, and related shortcomings in prison rehabilitation
programs. We categorize the prisoners’ descriptions and interpretations
of their experiences after participating in rehabilitation programming. We
are able, as a result, to shed light on these offenders’ perspectives on the
treatment efforts in which they were involved.
Keywords
drug abuse, prison rehabilitation, corrections, Malaysia, recidivism
1Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia
2Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
Corresponding Author:
N. Prabha Unnithan, Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
80523, USA.
Email: Prabha.Unnithan@colostate.edu
202
The Prison Journal 100(2)
Introduction
Malaysia, with a population of 31.2 million, is a multiethnic, multireligious,
and multilingual country in South East Asia. It is one of a few nations where
the death penalty is mandatory for drug trafficking convictions (Leechaianan
& Longmire, 2013). While this provision is being reconsidered in recent times
(Novak, 2014), less well known is that a large number of drug users and sellers
are sentenced to other punishments, specifically incarceration. According to a
recent report from Malaysia, “Some 33,500 of the 59,600 convicts in prisons
in this country are there because of drug offences and they represent 56 per
cent of the total number of prison inmates nation-wide” (Astro Awani, 2017).
This is comparable to the 50% to 56% figure (Chandler et al., 2009) for U.S.
prisoners and the 50% figure (Dolan et al., 2007) for prisoners in the European
Union affected by drug abuse.
However, similar to other aspects of its criminal justice system (Farrar,
2013), published research on drug offenders and treatment programs offered
in Malaysia is scarce. In this study, we explore the lived experiences of incar-
cerated drug offenders. Our goal is to understand their perspectives on the
treatment they underwent, the reasons they reoffended, and their rehabilita-
tion needs. We begin by reviewing recent meta-analyses of drug offender
treatment programs and then focus on studies of the personal experiences of
individuals involved in them.
Literature Review
Mitchell et al. (2007, p. 353) report on a meta-analysis of findings from 66
evaluations of “incarceration-based drug treatment programs.” Two mea-
sures of postrelease success were used: recidivism and renewed drug use.
They find that therapeutic community programs were effective on both out-
comes while other treatment methods (boot camps, residential treatment,
drug maintenance) were less successful on one or the other measure (see
also, Galassi et al., 2015). In a review of research published since 2000 on
the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs for offenders, Bahr
et al. (2012) report that “Participants in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT),
therapeutic communities, and drug courts had lower rates of drug use and
crime than comparable individuals who did not receive treatment” (p. 155).
In addition, Bahr et al. (2012) find reduced drug use associated with those
who had undergone “pharmacological treatments” and among “individuals
whose treatment was followed by an aftercare program” (p. 155).
Subsequently, Bahr et al. (2013) identified features of effective treatment
programs. These include (a) high intensity treatment, that is, time a
Cheah et al.
203
participant receives the program, (b) interactive programs that focus on skill
building according to offenders’ needs, (c) the use of cognitive-behavioral
therapy, (d) a structured program curriculum, (e) multiple treatment modali-
ties (e.g., programs that include cognitive-behavioral therapy, individual
counseling, group counseling, etc.), (f) treatment by trained professionals,
(g) compliance with the risk principle; targeting high- rather than low-risk
offenders, and (h) that the duration of treatment is associated with
effectiveness.
Studying how drug treatment affects inmates from their point of view has
been less common. Neale (1998) interviewed 80 drug users undergoing
methadone treatment, and expressed concern about the lack of attention to
“the views of those receiving” (p. 45) the intervention. Hunt and Barker
(1999) state that “An analysis of the client’s experience of treatment, the
micro-level of institutionalization and practice, is probably the area of drug
treatment research about which least is known” (p. 129). Koester et al. (1999),
who interviewed heroin users on methadone maintenance treatment reported
that learning from their respondents on “how some heroin users perceive and
use methadone . . . demonstrated the value in understanding and considering
their perspectives . . . when it comes to issues regarding their own health and
well-being” (p. 2135). Al-Tayyib and Koester (2011) echo this, stating that
their “findings bolster the argument for incorporating clients’ experiences
and concerns about treatment into methadone maintenance service develop-
ment” (p. 35). Frank et al. (2015, p. 156) refer to this as adopting a “user
perspective” on drug programs.
Some research has documented client experiences in treatment programs.
McKeganey et al. (2004) note that among the Scottish drug users they inter-
viewed, abstinence, not harm reduction, was the major goal for seeking treat-
ment (but, see Dahl, 2007, who reported that completely staying away from
drugs may not be the only goal). Kolind (2007) interviewed and observed 37
Danish drug users and noted their emphasis on the importance of the form of
drug treatment they experienced, even over the program’s content. Clients
mentioned “the attitude of the counsellor, the accessibility of spontaneous
counselling, and spaces that facilitated non-stigmatizing social encounters”
(Kolind, 2007, p. 261). Laudet et al. (2009) asked 135 American drug users
who had left outpatient treatment what the program could have done to retain
them. Two sets of concerns emerged: programmatic and individual. Barriers
at the programmatic level were dissatisfaction with counselors; needs for
social services that went unfulfilled; and issues with scheduling flexibility. At
the individual level, those who left exhibited low problem recognition and
continued substance use. Similarly, Laudet and White (2010) questioned 356
recovering drug users regarding their needs during the process. In addition to
204
The Prison Journal 100(2)
continuing work on recovery, other expressed needs included employment,
education, family and social relationships, as well as housing. Deering et al.
(2011, p. 636) compared consumers and treatment providers in New Zealand
on their respective views for reducing barriers to opioid substitution with a
goal of improving the attractiveness of such treatment. Common issues raised
by the 85 opioid users were “better treatment by staff, more flexibility, better
takeaway arrangements, and decreased waiting time.” The “takeaway arrange-
ments” refer to procedures for receiving the opioid substitutes while in treat-
ment (e.g., following urinalysis). Focusing on the views of drug offenders,
Hansen (2017) interviewed 16 respondents in Norway and found that a short
program while in prison “increased inmates’ motivation and provided them
with better tools to deal with their addiction.” Ray et al. (2017) report on
recidivism by 230 ex-prisoners in Indiana’s “Access to Recovery” (ATR) and
note:
Agencies that use ATR services who are more established in terms of revenue
and staff, and who have the explicit goal to deal with returning inmates, can be
more successful in reducing recidivism than less-established agencies that
focus only on substance abuse. (p. 889)
In this study, we bring together the two strands of research discussed
above (effectiveness of programs for incarcerated drug users and views of the
offenders themselves on the treatment they underwent). We utilize these to
examine Malaysian prison-based drug treatment programs as viewed by their
own clients. In line with the call by Yang et al. (2018, p. 1480), the study
draws on and analyzes the voices of these ex-prisoners to provide “a richer,
more nuanced description of treatment experiences”
Research Design and Data Collection Methods
Interpretive phenomenology allows us to describe and interpret the subjec-
tive and lived experiences of people. “Interpretive Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA) aims to explore in detail how participants make sense of their
personal and social world and the meanings particular experiences or events
hold for participants” (Gill, 2014, p. 126). IPA is appropriate when there is
limited information available to expand on a phenomenon (Smith et al.,
2009). The IPA design has been touted as “most appropriate” (Miner-
Romanoff, 2012) for studying crime. In this article, we draw from personal
accounts provided to us to describe and interpret...
To continue reading
Request your trial