Addiction Treatment

Treatment Instead of Incarceration

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 61,000 (16%) of convicted jail inmates committed their offense to get money for drugs. Two-thirds of convicted inmates were actively involved with drugs prior to their admission to jail (“Drug Use,” 2003). Texas completed an exhaustive study of its felony sentencing patterns and found that the most frequent crime resulting in a prison sentence was drug possession (22%), followed by burglary (20%), theft and fraud (20%), and drug delivery (15%) (Austin & Irwin, 2001).

The days of rehabilitating criminals have long since vanished in a whirlwind of impatience and cynicism. For a brief time, people were enthusiastic about treatment and its possibilities, but that attitude was quickly replaced by an attitude of “just desserts.” Poor research and quick fix attitudes scrapped many of the earlier attempts the criminal justice system tried at rehabilitation. People were not impressed with the results of rehabilitation, specifically for drug offenders, and so many programs were cut off from funding and collapsed.

Today, because of the overcrowding problem, many cities are being forced to look at treatment as a viable alternative to imprisonment. Laws have been passed that are designed to foster an increase in the use of alternatives for incarceration. The most notable of these efforts is Proposition 36 in California. Having worked in the recovery field for over five years, I have had first hand experience in helping develop programs that satisfy the court’s requirements for alternative sentencing and that fit Proposition 36 guidelines. Unfortunately, I have also been able to see how Proposition 36 was doomed from the start.

In the year 2000, an overwhelming number of people, over sixty percent, voted for The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act in California, commonly known as Proposition 36. The passage of this law represented a major shift in penology, from incarceration to rehabilitation. Not since the Progressive Movement of the early 1900’s and the original Quaker penology before that, has rehabilitation been part of the penal system.

Proposition 36 allows non-violent drug offenders to be placed on probation and into drug treatment. The person who is granted entrance into the Proposition 36 program is required to participate in treatment on a daily basis at a designated facility, submit to random drug tests, and participate in outside recovery meetings. Unlike the prisoner who is confined bodily to his cell in prison, the same criminal can now be granted a soft mattress at a recovery facility somewhere in California, and be given at least the illusion of greater freedom.

Unfortunately, Proposition 36 is poorly funded and understaffed. Furthermore, the kind of treatment that Proposition 36 offers (people who qualify for Prop 36 are sent to a treatment center that meets the program’s standards) is poor and halfhearted. The treatment is poor because Prop 36 will only pay $1200 per month for treatment and most quality inpatient facilities cost at least $4000 a month. Nancy Clarks is the most notable Prop 36 treatment facility in Orange County, California. The facility offers different levels of monitoring and treatment, but the basic program remains the same for everyone and the program does not offer the intensive treatment that many of the drug offenders need.

Opening up treatment centers that cater to Prop 36 is almost as difficult as opening a new jail or prison in an area. Neighbors object and law abiding citizens cry out in fear. The biggest problem lately with Prop 36 treatment facilities is the people who are admitted to them. One lawyer in Orange County commented that the biggest problem they are having with Prop 36 facilities is the property crime that takes place as a result of clients who relapse (Personal Communication, 5-7-2003).

Treatment programs have sprung up in many states other than California. In Quincy, Massachusetts, first-and second-time DWI offenders may be placed on probation as an alternative to jail and ordered to a certified drunk driving treatment program. In this 26-week program, offenders are required to attend weekly group counseling sessions and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings (“Alleviating,” 2003).

“Some jurisdictions are actually reducing their prison terms and funding alternatives to prison” (Austin & Irwin, 2001, p.xiv). Jails are beginning to open their own treatment programs within their walls. The Boulder, Colorado jail has created a Drug/Alcohol Evaluation Unit that evaluates offenders convicted of alcohol-or-drug-related driving offenses for level of alcohol or drug dependence and petty misdemeanor drug offenses (“Alleviating,” 2003).

This program boasts high success rates, but one thing that treatment facilities, judges, and public defenders have realized since the last rehabilitation surge in the criminal justice system, is that politicians and the people like high success rates and they will coax research statistics to reflect a successful image. There is undeniably a high recidivism rate for drug addicts and alcoholics, but the most effective treatment is one that accepts this fact of addiction and works with it instead of against it. For many drug addicts and alcoholics, relapse is a part of rehabilitation and it takes patient and perseverant case workers, judges, and politicians to understand this simple truth.

Rehabilitation has begun to make a faint reappearance, but only in so far as it is a solution to overcrowding. With Proposition 36 and alternative sentencing, courts can siphon a steady stream of nonviolent offenders from the jails and put them into rehabilitation programs. Nancy Clarks in Orange County is one of the more frequently used alternative sentencing facilities for nonviolent drug offenders. Nancy Clark offers a variety of monitoring devices, levels of confinement, and in and out patient options for judges to utilize.

Orange County has another option available to non-violent drug offenders called Drug Court. Drug Court is another one of the more innovative efforts towards rehabilitation. Judge David McEachen was the first judge to reside over the new felony drug court in March 1995 and in 2000 they had 189 participants and 50 successful graduates (Orange County Superior Court Drug Court 2000 Annual Report). The Drug Court has a designed capacity of 200.

Drug Court was designed with more of a rehabilitative spirit in mind, and ironically, or perhaps predictably, according to the current president of the Orange County chapter of the National Counsel on Drugs and Alcohol (NSDA), Grant McNiff, the program is in danger of collapsing for lack of funds despite its success (Personal communication, March 5, 2003). “Many have finally begun to openly question the wisdom of lengthy mandatory prison terms for drug users. The huge costs of the imprisonment binge have led states to reconsider prison construction programs” (Austin & Irwin, 2001, p. xiv).

See More Articles