Foley 1

Julia Foley English 1010 Dr. Paul Anderson Issue Exploratory Project December 2, 2013 Treatment vs. Incarceration Did you know that the United States has the highest incarceration rate and highest prison population in the world? The fact that the countrys high rate of incarceration is largely due to drug sentencing guidelines and drug policies was an issue of great concern to me. Incarceration affects not just the inmate but also their spouse, children, family, friends, government and society in general. The issue of incarceration for drug offenders is complex because it reflects different perspectives such as ethnic profiling, recidivism and overcrowding of prison. It is problematic because once the offender is convicted they have multiple hurdles to overcome. Continued addiction problems, lack of housing opportunities and obtaining work are just a few of the issues they have to face. Recidivism is often due to not being provided treatment. The issue of treatment vs. incarceration is problematic because funding is low and often spent on imprisonment rather than treatment for the addict. It is significant because it has led to an overcrowding of our prisons and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. What works the best, treatment or prison? How would reducing the recidivism rate be cost effective? According to the state of Utah $28,000 is the annual cost of incarcerating an offender compared to $3,500 per offender to provide treatment. The question that I decided to research was whether or not treatment is more effective than incarceration.

Foley 2

In William D. McColl and Opio Sokonis article titled Treatment Instead of Incarceration they discuss the initiative approach and the advantages it has over the use of drug courts. As I began my research I was led to Behavioral Healthcare Magazine and this article that focuses on treatment vs. incarceration. This magazine is read by managers and clinicians in the mental health and substance abuse fields who work closely with clients much like these defendants. The authors argue that the initiative approach has judges taking a much less active role in the treatment and wouldnt be as selective which could create eligibility for a much larger class of defendants. In both California and Arizona both approaches are used and even work well together. Research shows that treatment can be as little as 10% of the cost of incarceration. Treatment should be made more available. The changed policies in Arizona diverted 2600 nonviolent offenders into drug treatment in its first year which saved Arizona taxpayers more than $6 million in prison costs. Drug courts allow cooperation between county and government systems to help an individual on a legal, social and health/medical basis yet not every county does not have a drug court in operation. Of the 3,144 counties only 2,400 have an active drug court program. Drug courts not only deal with a persons substance abuse problems but they work to prepare the person for life after release of the program with things such as job skills and training. This article brought the initiative approach to my attention which is based on community based programs which is a different approach from drug courts. Seven million individuals in the United States are currently under some form of criminal justice supervision and 5 million could benefit from treatment for addiction yet only 76% are receiving that treatment. In the weekly periodical Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly an editorial titled ONDCP Stresses Importance of Treatment, Not Incarceration refers to the

Foley 3

Obama administrations new public health approach to substance abuse. This approach is threepronged. 1. Addiction is a disease than can be treated. 2. People can recover, and 3. New interventions are needed. Scientific assertions by the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) are that drug addiction affects judgment, reasoning and changes the brains chemistry. The outcomes for people who are mandated to treatment are as good as those who enter treatment voluntarily. There is evidence that drug courts, by offering offenders the alternative of community based treatment instead of incarceration are promising in reducing criminal behavior and substance abuse. Research also shows that treating addiction requires addressing underlying issues and causes. Forced abstinence through detention in prisons or jails is not a substitute for treatment. By financing domestic law enforcement, which includes activities focused on the criminal justice system, such as the courts, police, and prosecution in favor of treatment the government has focused on punishment rather than prevention. While I strongly believe prisons and jail arent the answer there are disagreements on what is the solution for these offenders and addicts in general. Is drug court the solution for keeping recidivism rates low? In the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology authors Andrew Fulkerson, Linda D. Keena and Erin OBrien report on their qualitative study of drug court participants in an Arkansas drug court program. They compare and contrast the perceptions of those graduated from the program with those who were terminated from the program. Studies have consistently shown that the drug court program is effective in reducing recidivism for those persons who complete the rigorous program. They discuss how drug courts operate with drug treatment and are coerced by threats of sanctions. In this study the majority of the drug participants stated that they entered the drug

Foley 4

court program on advice of counsel. More than half of the non-completers but less than one fifth of the graduates stated that the goal of this recommendation was to give the person a chance to avoid prison, while more than half of the graduates said their attorney suggested it based on the treatment they would receive for their addiction. The strict schedule and the sanctions given as consequence to violating the drug court programs were stated as a hindrance to finding and maintaining employment. Although this study was made up of both graduates and noncompleters of the program most participants, including a majority of non-completers stated that the drug court program allowed them to repair relationships with family, significant others, and the community. Drug court programs are proven to be effective even with the participants who do not complete the program. While the non-completers may be more likely to relapse or recommit crimes the better the chance they have. Drug court, in my opinion, has saved many lives and returned many individuals to their families and in some cases where plea in abeyances are offered on completion of the program they have prevented the offender from receiving a felony on their permanent record. This study was done with a very small group of people. The Arkansas drug court study was made up of only 15 participants. Not all advocates of treatment believe that drug court is the answer. Tracy Velazquez, former executive director of the Justice Policy Institute wrote an article titled The Verdict on Drug Courts in the oldest continuously published weekly magazine The Nation. She states how with the creation of drug courts less community-based programs are being created and people are unable to receive treatment unless arrested and then referred to drug court. She goes on to state that because of the lack of accessible, community-based resources, many people gain access to the treatment they need only after being arrested. According to the

Foley 5

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 9 percent of Americans are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and less than a quarter of these individuals receive substance abuse treatment. Another study estimates that 37 percent of those who do are referred by the criminal justice system. In her opinion drug courts may be widening rather than shrinking the net of criminal justice control and that without drug courts in the mix, some addicts might have been able to receive the help they needed without being in the court system. Ms. Velazquezs suggests that instead of referring someone to a social worker or community based program well-meaning police, prosecutors and judges send people to drug court and given the lack of other options these individuals are often grateful for the opportunity to get treatment. However generally a person must plead guilty to participate in the program and the conviction is only reduced or overturned if he or she is successful and completes the program. I disagree that drug courts are not needed. I do believe that treatment and resources arent as easy to come by until after you are in the court system. I strongly believe that communitybased programs are needed and should be made more available to the communities as a resource for individuals to seek help on their own or be referred before an offense lands you in jail. However, many addicts are all or nothing. Addiction can have overpowering control over a person. While it may be true that some may seek help there are many that will not. The drug court program is available to many as a resource to prevent them from going to prison and while not all courts offer a plea in abeyance, I believe that as an alternative to spending time in prison and away from familys drug court proves to be worth it for most offenders. As discussed before incarceration is costing the United States millions more than outside treatment. It is costing both taxpayers and the government. Drug policy research done by Doug McVay, an activist, writer, researcher and speaker with a long history in drug policy reform and

Foley 6

co-authors Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg who are, respectively, executive director and director of policy and research of the Justice Policy Institute show that, on the whole, providing drug offenders with treatment is a more cost-effective way of dealing with substance addicted and non-violent offenders than prison. They provide reports by government agencies, centrist and center-right think tanks and surveys of programs in Maryland that show treatment is a much less expensive option than incarceration for handling substance abusing offenders. Other studies that used a cost-benefit analysis, a broader measure of how money spent on treatment alternatives compares to money spent on prisons in terms of crime rates and other societal benefits like employment and tax revenues have shown that, dollar for dollar, treatment reduces the societal costs of substance abuse more effectively than incarceration does. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatments final report on NTIES noted that In summary, we observed a pattern of substantially reduced alcohol and drug use in every type of treatment modality, with reductions typically between one-thirds depending on the type of service unit and the specific measure. There are therapeutic treatment programs inside the prisons. However I learned that these in-prison programs or that same program with community aftercare after the person leaves prison yields a benefit of between$1.91 and $2.69 for every dollar spent on them. By contrast, therapeutic community programs outside of prison, typically work release facilities yielded $8.87 of benefit for every program dollar spent. This is valuable research done showing actual monetary data that incarceration is more expensive and has lot less effect on both the inmate and the community. I believe very strongly in treatment over incarceration. I have seen the lives many affected negatively by the consequences of being in the system permanently. I do believe that

Foley 7

people have to pay consequences for their behavior however addiction is a disease that can be treated. Non-violent offenders end up spending more time in prison sometimes because of minimum mandatory sentences than convicts who have committed much more violent and serious crimes. During the course of writing this paper I have learned about alternatives to imprisonment and the cost-effectiveness of treating for people with addictions. My opinion has not changed but only grown more decisive about the fact that treatment has the ability to save lives and incarceration has the ability to ruin them. There is much empirical data that proves this is a more cost-effective way and helps not only the addict but their families, the community and society in general. It amazed me how much research there is done on the benefits of treatment compared to the benefits of imprisonment yet still millions of people are incarcerated each year due to new charges and recidivism. While my research has covered what other options there are I am still curious as to why not more is being done to end the War on Drugs.

Foley 8

Works Cited

Fulkerson, Andrew, Linda D. Keena, and Erin O'Brien. "Understanding Success and Nonsuccess in the Drug Court." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57.10 (2012): 1297-1316. Print. McColl, William D. and Sokoni, Opio. Treatment Instead of Incarceration Behavioral Health Management March/April 2003: 21-24. Print. McVay, Doug, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg. "Treatment or Incarceration: National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment." justicepolicy.org. N.p., 30 Jan. 2004. Web. 2 Dec. 2004. Unknown."ONDCP Stresses Importance of Treatment, Not incarceration." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 5 Dec. 2011: 4-5. wileyonlinelinbrary.com. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. Velazquez, Tracy. "The Verdict on Drug Courts." The Nation 27 Dec. 2010: 1. thenation.com. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.