DRUG TREATMENT BELONGS OUTSIDE OF ISLE PRISONS

Now that Hawaii's joint House-Senate task force on ice and drug abatement
has met for the final time and state lawmakers are busy writing legislation
that will shape drug policies for years, we would like to share some
findings from the scientific literature regarding what does and doesn't work
in combating drug abuse and crime.

First, contrary to conventional wisdom, the current balance of evidence
suggests that incarceration does a poor job of reducing crime.

Texas provides a sobering example of incarceration's failure. During the
past decade, Texas' prison population tripled, growing faster than any other
state. Yet while crime rates across the country dropped in the 1990s, they
declined in Texas by only 5.1 percent. By contrast, in New York, which had
the third-slowest-growing prison population during the same period, crime
rates fell by 21 percent.

The lesson? Locking up more people does not necessarily make communities
safer. Certainly, imprisonment keeps offenders from committing crimes while
they are incarcerated. But this "incapacitation" effect ends when prisoners
are released, and roughly 67 percent to 80 percent commit new crimes.

Recent news reports suggest that Governor Lingle's administration wants to
build a 500-bed prison in Hawaii emphasizing drug abuse treatment. This is a
seductive proposal. It responds to community pressure for more drug
treatment and remains tough on drug users. But what does the scholarly
literature say about the effectiveness of drug treatment prisons?

The current evidence is mixed. For example, while a University of
California-Los Angeles study found that prison drug treatment followed by
six months of aftercare cut recidivism by about 70 percent, a recent
meta-analysis of prison- based drug treatment found that such programs
decreased recidivism by only 10 percent. Why this huge variation?

A close look at the literature shows that a rigid set of criteria is
necessary to achieve high rates of success. Effective prison-based treatment
programs include costly components, such as separate units for those
receiving treatment, extensive and on-going staff training, thoroughly
planned interventions, continuous monitoring and extensive aftercare.

Will Hawaii's cash-strapped, overcrowded prison system be able to provide
such a comprehensive program? If not, taxpayers will have spent an enormous
amount of money on a program that may not work.

Finally, there is no guarantee that a drug treatment prison today will be a
drug treatment prison tomorrow. Look again at Texas. In 1991, Gov. Ann
Richards received funding to add 14,000 beds for prison-based drug
treatment. When Gov. George W. Bush took over in 1995, most of the treatment
facilities were converted to regular prisons. In 2003, Gov. Rick Perry cut
prison treatment further. What began as an innovative and promising approach
to incarceration ended in more of the same -- costly, ineffective
imprisonment. Hawaii should not follow this failed model.

Instead, we believe Hawaii should do the following:

Invest in crime prevention strategies backed by solid scientific evidence.
Criminologists have deliberated over the "what works" question for more than
20 years, and they have concluded that prevention programs work. Because
drug abuse and crime share similar causes, prevention programs can decrease
the number of youths starting drug use while preventing a range of
delinquent and criminal behaviors. Prevention is not only effective, it
makes good fiscal sense. One California study estimated that in their first
year, prevention programs saved the state from $1,468 to $15,000 per person
enrolled; 30 years out, the savings were from $29,350 to $221,750 per
person.

For those already drug-addicted, Hawaii needs to invest in scientifically
proven community-based interventions. Extensive evidence suggests that drug
treatment implemented out of prisons can decrease drug use, criminal
activity and arrest rates while increasing employment rates among treatment
populations.

Finally, the state should reduce reliance on incarceration for nonviolent
drug offenders. Prisons are blunt, expensive tools. They devour taxpayers'
money, chew up the lives of prisoners and their families and do a poor job
of reducing crime. Yet we know treatment outside of prison works. It costs
less than incarceration and comes with fewer side effects. Before investing
Hawaii's precious resources in new prisons, we urge lawmakers to think about
cheaper, more effective alternatives.