SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS CAN HELP OFFENDERS

On most days at the Hackberry Unit in Central Texas, a group of women
prisoners gather in barracks-style dorms to talk through their drug
addictions with other inmates and professional staff members. They
work and also attend classes to develop new skills.

The women participate in an intensive, nine-to 12-month program Texas
legislators established in 1991 to help prisoners fight their drug
addictions. The "in-prison therapeutic community" at the Hackberry
Unit in Gatesville belongs to one of four substance abuse programs the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice operates across the state for
male and female offenders.

The therapy plans have a clear societal purpose: attacking the drug
addictions that propel so many parolees back into crime and thus into
prison.

The programs receive high praise from some ex-offenders. Participants
in the state's prison therapy programs routinely say that they have
wandered in and out of jail before without any help to fight their
all-consuming drug habits.

"I wish to God years ago they [had] had SAFP," says Debra, a former
inmate who participated in one Texas prison substance abuse program.
"In treatment they open you up and give you knowledge."

SAFP (pronounced "SAFE-P") is the acronym for the "substance abuse
felony punishment" program Texas legislators created in 1991. The
in-prison therapeutic community was created simultaneously. At last
count, more than 5,200 male and female inmates were enrolled in one of
the two initiatives. They form the backbone of the state's most recent
attempts to help inmates combat their drug problems and to prevent
recidivism.

In 1997, state legislators reviewed prison pre-release programs,
created several new ones, and began to monitor their effectiveness.
Legislators gave prison officials four years to make these programs
work.

The substance abuse initiatives have been around long enough to draw
some preliminary assessments. So far, substance abuse felony
punishment has been more successful than the in-prison therapeutic
community. That's because it primarily treats probationers, people who
receive suspended sentences instead of prison time. It costs less to
send probationers to treatment than to prison, and probationers tend
to complete the program. (If probationers don't finish, they could end
up in jail or prison.)

The in-prison therapeutic community, however, deals largely with
prisoners, not probationers. The inmates may have little incentive to
complete the program because they are scheduled for mandatory release.
That's one reason the program has so many dropouts; it doesn't matter
if the inmates finish the program because they will be released anyway.

A way to correct that phenomenon is to place more inmates trying to
earn parole, rather than those destined for mandatory release, in a
therapeutic community in prison. The Texas Department of Criminal
Justice and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles already are working
more closely to make sure that parole-eligible prisoners occupy more
of the 750-plus program beds.

That's an improvement. The two boards must continue working together
to make substance abuse treatment a key part of reducing recidivism.

The Criminal Justice Department must also keep a tight rein on the

private firms that run substance abuse programs. It should especially
make sure the staffs know the best ways to help prisoners break old
habits. The department should hold private firms accountable for
improving prisoners' completion rates.

The criminal justice system also might reduce recidivism if more
parole officers could meet inmates before they finish substance abuse
programs. Each prisoner should have an exit plan, but sometimes they
don't work. If parole officers and prisoners could get acquainted
before a release date, that might provide a smoother "handoff" between
the prison system and the parole division.

Some Texas legislators may not take rehabilitation seriously. For
instance, some political observers speculate that a few lawmakers may
want to curtail the in-prison initiative during their 1999 legislative
session. Lawmakers should resist that urge. The program deserves more
time to work on improving completion rates.

Legislators also should consider putting up more dollars for
additional beds at the Criminal Justice Department's six major
pre-release programs - at least until 2001, when the programs are
finally evaluated.

Selectively adding beds could help more Texas prisoners confront their
drug problems.

Legislators also must invest more money to expand the ranks of parole
officers. Allowing more parole officers to work with offenders before
they are released will help smooth the transition to the free world.

The aim of all these reforms is simple: to increase the chances
inmates don't return to a life of crime.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady