BY: Seth Warren Heath

Drug Treatment

vs.

Incarceration

for

Non-Violent Drug Offenders

 

Abstract

            Current governmental illicit drug policy creates excessive fiscal liability and an immeasurable human cost. If we continue along the current path we will imprison thousands more people exponentially increasing the monetary cost of the prison system indeterminately. In order to decrease drug use and related crime treatment of drug users and addicts must become the priority and not incarceration. Government research suggests that drug treatment programs are more cost effective than prisons and reduce the overall cost to society. This policy analysis examines California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, SACPA, and Arizona’s Proposition 200 and discusses the social and fiscal benefits of treatment over incarceration.

An incremental approach is recommended as a strategy to change public attitudes towards drug users. Once public attitudes change and become more receptive to treatment for non-violent drug offenders, progressive governmental policy is the best approach to achieve long-term positive results.

Drug Treatment.

            Is it in the best interest of society to imprison non-violent drug offenders? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1996 it cost a national average of $20,100 a year to incarcerate an individual[1]. The Department of Justice said in Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997 that 145,628 inmates were incarcerated on drug possession charges[2]. By multiplying the 1996 cost per day by the 1997 number of inmates incarcerated for drug possession we discover that America is spending $2,927,122,800.00 a year to imprison these people. The cost is not only enormous in monetary terms but also in the price to civilization in terms of human dignity. The National Institute on Drug Abuse states, “According to several conservative estimates, every $1 invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft alone. When savings related to health care are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.”[3] With such savings possible it is hard not to justify increased drug treatment programs. As Governor Gary Johnson said in his 2001 State of the State Address:

We need to reform our drug policies.  The goal should be to help those addicted to drugs to find a better way.  The answer is not imprisonment and legal attack.  The answer lies in sentencing reform, treatment, harm reduction and education.  We need policies that reflect what we know about drug addiction rather than policies that seek to punish instead of help. We need a humanitarian approach[4].

In order to develop effective policy one must first look at who will be the most dramatically impacted by the policy and seek to reduce that damage. In order to develop an effective drug use reduction program we must first address the drug user and abuser and discover what creates the use. Once the root cause of the drug use is determined then address that issue with treatment that seeks to provide positive alternatives to drug use in dealing with the problem/s. The long-term solution to drug use is not incarceration. The long-term solution to drug use is treatment.

California: Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000

            On November 7, 2000 the people of California approved Proposition 36 with 61% of the vote. Proposition 36 is also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA). In an overview of SACPA the Drug Policy Alliance defines SACPA as, “an initiative aimed at rehabilitating rather than incarcerating non-violent drug possession offenders.”[5]

             SACPA changed three main areas: 1) the sentencing structure concerning simple drug possession offenders 2) conditions under which parole can be revoked for non-violent drug offenders 3) creation of the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund.

            The SACPA mandates that “any person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation.”[6] This prevents the Courts from sending non-violent drug offenders to prison. SACPA also requires “As a condition of probation the court shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program. The court may also impose as a condition of probation participation in vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and/or community service. A court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation.”[7] This section provides very specific guidelines for probation and a requirement for drug treatment. SACPA does provide for circumstances in which the offender is habitual or in possession of a firearm at the time of arrest. Should the offender decline treatment then the court may impose incarceration as an option.

            A common problem among parolees is drug use. In the past any type of illegal drug use would be a violation of parole and the parolee would be re-incarcerated, SACPA changes that. In the act it is mandated that being caught in possession or failing a urinalysis due to drug use will not be sufficient to revoke parole for a parolee that is not on parole for a violent crime. SACPA requires that the parolee be offered the same “appropriate drug treatment program…vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and/or community service”[8] as the probationer. This section of the act is not retroactive.

            In order to accomplish the desired affect appropriations must be made to pay for the SACPA. An important part of the SACPA is the provision that provides for the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund. The foundation of the trust fund ensures financial support will always be available to provide for successful implementation, evaluation and evolution of SACPA. The amount specified in the act sets out that $900m be placed into the fund beginning in mid-2000 with the last appropriation of $120m occurring in fiscal 2005-2006. Another part of the act stipulates that the remaining money may be spent on programs that seek to further the spirit of the act and that counties shall have control over locations for treatment centers.

            Equally as important as implementing the program is constant evaluation of the progress, success and failures of any new initiative, especially one as ambitious as SACPA. The very act that created SACPA also establishes certain evaluative provisions. These provisions provide for evaluation both internal and external and short and long term.

Arizona: Proposition 200

            In 1996 Arizona passed Proposition 200 requiring drug treatment for non-violent drug offenders and California soon followed in November of 2000 with the previously discussed Proposition 36 or SACPA. A similar measure was defeated in the November 2002 election in Ohio. What all of these items have in common is the realization that it is more effective and efficient to provide treatment for drug users than to incarcerate them. In the Drug Treatment and Education Fund Legislative Report, Fiscal 1997-1998, issued by the Supreme Court of Arizona, it is stated that the net cost savings to the Arizona public in 1998 equaled $2,563,062[9]. This was determined based on the cost of the $50.25 daily imprisonment rate compared with the $16.06 daily intensive treatment rate for a probationer. The same report also states that “77.5% of drug possession probationers tested negative for drug use after the program.”[10]

The benefits of treatment are not only limited to reducing cost for incarceration but also the burden placed on the welfare system by drug users. The Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment states that “Treatment decreased welfare use by 10.7% and increased employment by 18.7% after one year, according to the 1996 National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study.”[11] By decreasing the burden placed on the welfare system by drug users we increase the availability of those funds to be used for families that have a legitimate need, not one induced by drug use. When 18.7% of drug treatment graduates have a job after a year we have added a productive member to society. A productive member that will not be engaged not in criminal acts but engaged in a legitimate tax paying job, contributing to and becoming a member of society.

Findings

            Per the Arizona Proposition 200 there is an annual evaluation of the program conducted by the Supreme Court of Arizona. The evaluation is used to determine the success of the program and to discover how much money is being saved by providing treatment to drug offenders instead of incarceration. For the fiscal year 1997-1998 the Arizona Supreme released its report. The report included a report card (Appendix A) that provided a break down of who was served by demographic, risk/need, where they were placed, program outcome, days in treatment and finally the cost savings to the Arizona public.[12] There were two finding that I found particularly interesting. The program served 2,622 people. This means that in 1997-1998 two thousand and twenty-two non-violent drug offenders were prevented from going to prison and provided treatment for their problem. By diverting these 2,622 citizens from prison and into treatment the second interesting finding arises, that of the $2,563,062 in cost savings that Arizona saved with the program. With many states facing depressed revenues and increased dependence on government for assistance due to the stale economy there is no better time to institute a cost saving measure such treatment instead of incarceration. Initially the outlay may be high but in the long run the savings will be huge. Not only will we be keeping the cost of incarceration down but we will be providing important training to drug users, training that can help them become successful members of society, successful taxpaying members of society.

New Mexico: Non-Violent Drug Offender Treatment Act of 2002

            In order for positive long-term benefits to be seen we must use an incremental approach when introducing drug policy reform and innovation. Despite the fact that 35.8%[13] of the population has used illicit drugs, as New Mexico Governor Johnson experienced, the public is not ready for drug legalization. The first phase of the process is to change the publics’ perception of the drug user from that of an insane demon to that of a fellow human. In order to accomplish this task we must begin by instituting a program of public awareness to the issue that is backed up by sound science and solid facts.

In November of 2000 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMSHA) endeavored upon the National Treatment Plan Initiative. Part of the treatment initiative was a panel that developed a program called Changing the Conversation. In that program were many revelations:

Changing the Conversation initiated the first intensive exploration of the stigmas and attitudes that affect people with alcohol and drug problems. The Panel addressed stigma as a powerful, shame-based mark of disgrace and reproach that impedes treatment and recovery. Prejudicial attitudes and beliefs generate and perpetuate stigma; therefore, people suffering from alcohol and/or drug problems and those in recovery are often ostracized, discriminated against, and deprived of basic human rights. Their families, treatment providers, and even researchers may face comparable stigmas and attitudes. Ironically, stigmatized individuals often endorse the attitudes and practices that stigmatize them. They may internalize this thinking and behavior, which consequently becomes part of their identity and sense of self-worth.[14]

The first step in changing the cycle of drug use and addiction is changing societies attitudes towards drug users and abusers. Once we have created a public and political environment that is receptive to concepts relating to drug policy reform we have a window of opportunity in which we can formulate and implement new policy aimed at treatment and not incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.

            Many of the Propositions discussed earlier were caused by citizens forcing the question to appear on a ballot. I would view this as a pluralistic or bottom up approach. Many of the elites are not interested in providing treatment for drug users. With the traditional law and order mentality it is not popular to think of treating law violators as people but as criminals. The success of the ballot initiatives in Arizona and California makes it clear that society is gradually coming to understand that there are viable alternatives to incarceration for drug users.

As in the past new and innovative programs are often met with apprehension and distrust. The program in Arizona is approaching its sixth year and SACPA in California is still in its infancy. Once pilot programs such as these demonstrate their potential for saving taxpayer money and countless lives from prison it will become increasingly easy to push for further advancement of these programs at the state and national level. Let New Mexico lead the way towards further advances in policy concerning non-violent drug offenders. Let New Mexico be first on this list and not last.

Conclusion

            The best solution for the drug problem is not increased incarceration but increased treatment for drug use and related problems. Most states use the ballot initiative to institute drug treatment programs but the legislature can mandate such a program by law. To get drug treatment initiatives on the ballot or in the legislature we must first increase voter awareness about the issues surrounding the current drug war and the benefits of treatment. In order to increase awareness a persuasive argument that relates the important issues to the people deciding on them needs to be presented. Important issues to include would be the monetary and human cost of current drug policy and the benefits that would be afforded society under a drug treatment plan. Since there are currently several programs that are in operation finding a good model on which to base policy development would be greatly simplified. In Appendix b I have attached a flowchart that demonstrates how many of the current systems work.

The success of treatment for non-violent drug offenders has been demonstrated in both California and Arizona. With programs such as SACPA and Proposition 200 already functioning it would not be hard for New Mexico to develop a similar program at a relatively low cost. By using already functioning models the cost of research and development is drastically lowered. An example of a system is provided in Appendix B. This program could be local at first and gradually expand to encompass a large portion of the non-violent drug offenders.

            By providing treatment to non-violent drug offenders that would otherwise be incarcerated society benefits in many ways. Millions of tax dollars can be saved by providing treatment to non-violent drug offenders. Many treatment programs incorporate vocational and life skill training as part of the treatment program enabling the drug user to become a productive part of society once again. Current drug policy places an increasing burden on an already bursting prison system by imprisoning non-violent drug offenders in space that could be better used to house violent criminals.

The time for change in drug policy is now. We must change societies attitudes toward drug users. We must educate people about the incredible potential drug treatment programs offer. We must encourage our elected officials to act responsibly and enact these programs. If they will not institute these programs the people will. We must endeavor to rehabilitate and not incarcerate non-violent drug offenders. We must do these things and we must do them now! 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Abadinky, Howard. Organized Crime 5^th Ed, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1998.

 

Albuquerque Tribune, Study says drug war costs N.M. $43 million, Online, 10 July 2001

Available: http://www.abqtrib.com/politics/022201_drugcost.shtml

 

Braithwaite, John. Crime, shame and reintegration. New York. Cambridge. 1989

 

Foucault, Michel, Discipline & Punish, The Birth of the Prison, 2^nd ed, New York:

Random House, 1995

 

Lynch, Timothy. After Prohibition. Washington DC: Cato. 2000

 

NHSDA 1999. National Estimates of Drug Use, Online, 22 July 2001

            Available: http://www. Samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/1999/Chapter2.htm

Nawojczyk, Steve. Gang Dynamics, 1997. Online, 22 July 2001

            Available: http://www.gangwar.com/dynamics.htm

 

Yochelson, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E. The Criminal Personality. New Jersey:

Aronson, 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[6] California Codes. Penal Code. SECTION 1210.1