Diverting drug offenders to treatment programmes rather than prison could save the US criminal justice system millions of dollars and reduce recidivism, according to a study by RTI International
The study, funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a subcontract with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was published in the latest issue of Justice Research and Policy (Issue 7, Vol 1).
"The study shows that drug treatment programmes for felony offenders provide great economic benefits to the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism rates among offenders, providing societal and economic benefits," said Gary Zarkin, principal investigator for the study.
"Based on the results, policymakers should consider diversion programmes for higher-risk drug offenders in addition to low-risk offenders usually eligible for such programmes".
The study compared 130 drug offenders serving time in prison in 1995-1996 with 150 participants enrolled in the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison programme during that same time.
The drug treatment programme was implemented in 1990 by the Kings County district attorney's office in Brooklyn, NY.
The study monitored participant costs associated with the criminal justice system, the drug treatment program and recidivism rates for six years.
Results showed that the drug treatment programme saved the criminal justice system more than $47,000 per person during the six-year period, a savings of more than $7 million to the New York City criminal justice system for the 150 participants studied.
The study also found that participants in the drug treatment programme had lower recidivism rates than those in the prison comparison group.
The drug treatment programme diverts nonviolent felony drug offenders from prison into community-based treatment early in the legal process, avoiding high costs of incarceration and most of the costs of prosecution.
The study estimated costs for the drug treatment programme as well as court processes including prison and parole.
Researchers also analysed annual costs and six-year cumulative costs for participants in the drug treatment program as well as for those in the prison comparison group.
"We did not include other potential societal benefits such as reduced public assistance, and avoided crime and victimisation costs in our analysis," Zarkin said.
"If we factor in those added outcomes, the economic benefit of diversion programs may be significantly larger, demonstrating an even greater value of such programmes".
Zarkin suggests that researchers and policymakers use the results of this study to evaluate the potential benefits of other diversion programmes.
