Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety
January 2008
The Justice Policy Institute
is a Washington, D.C.based think tank dedicated
to ending society’s
reliance on incarceration
and promoting effective
and just solutions to social
problems.

Introduction

“Providing drug-abusing offenders with comprehensive treatment saves lives
and protects communities.”—Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse1

Board of Directors

The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal
and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in
American prisons or jails.2 Approximately one-quarter of those people held in
U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense.3 The United States
incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an
estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence,4 the
growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration
for drug offenses.

Tara Andrews
At-Large
David C. Fathi
Board Chair
Katharine Huffman
At-Large
Peter Leone, Ph.D.
Board Treasurer

This research brief will summarize findings on what is known about substance
abuse treatment as it relates to public safety and the use of incarceration. Along
with conducting a brief literature review, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) has
compared state data on drug treatment admissions to incarceration rates. While
no single solution will guarantee that a person will not be involved in criminal
activity and the literature is not conclusive on what single factor might solve
every community’s various challenges, the research suggests that increased
investments in drug treatment can have a positive public safety benefit.
Significant findings from this brief include:

Mark I. Soler
Board Secretary
Executive Director
Sheila Bedi, Esq
Research Staff
Amanda Petteruti
Research & Publications
Associate
Nastassia Walsh
Research Assistant

•

Jason Ziedenberg
Sr. Policy Advisor

Communications Staff
LaWanda Johnson
Communications Director
Laura Jones
Communications Consultant
Emily Sydnor
Communications Assistant

1003 K Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-558-7974
Fax: 202-558-7978
www.justicepolicy.org

Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with
reductions in crime rates. Admissions to drug treatment increased 37.4
percent and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14.6 percent from
1995 to 2005. During the same period, violent crime fell 31.5 percent.
Maryland experienced decreases in crime when jurisdictions increased the
number of people sent to drug treatment.

1

Volkow, Nora D. 2006. Treat the addict, cut the crime rate. Washington Post, August 19. Editorial,
A17.
2
Sabol, William J., Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. Harrison. 2007. Prison and jail inmates at
midyear 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3
Number of people in federal or state prison for drug offenses: Harrison, Paige, and Allen J. Beck.
2006. Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Estimate of jail inmates held
on drug offense derived from James, Doris J. 2004. Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2005 National Survey on Drug Use & Health: Detailed
Tables. Table 5.1A Online at
www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/tabs/Sect5peTabs1to82.htm#Tab5.1A

1

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

•

Increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with reduced incarceration
rates. States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send,
on average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have
lower than average drug treatment admissions. Of the 20 states that admit the most
people to treatment per 100,000, 19 had incarceration rates below the national average.
Of the 20 states that admitted the fewest people to treatment per 100,000, eight had
incarceration rates above the national average. California experienced decreases in
incarceration rates when jurisdictions increased the number of people sent to drug
treatment.

•

Substance abuse treatment prior to contact with the justice system yields public
safety benefits early on. Research has shown that drug treatment programs improve life
outcomes for individuals and decrease the likelihood that a drug-involved person will be
admitted to the criminal justice system.

•

Substance abuse treatment helps in the transition from the criminal justice system
to the community. Community-based drug treatment programs have been shown to
reduce the chance that a person will become involved in the criminal justice system after
release from prison.

•

Substance abuse treatment is more cost-effective than prison or other punitive
measures. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that drug
treatment conducted within the community is extremely beneficial in terms of cost,
especially compared to prison. Every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community is
estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society.

“Studies have consistently shown that comprehensive drug treatment works. It not only reduces
drug use but also curtails criminal behavior and recidivism. Moreover, for drug-abusing
offenders, treatment facilitates successful reentry into the community.” —Dr. Nora D. Volkow,
director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse5

5

Volkow, Nora D. 2006.
2

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

1) Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with reductions
in crime.
.

There is currently a debate among criminologists and researchers as to what factors were
responsible for the crime drop in the 1990s that brought the nation’s crime rate to historic lows
and kept them at a low rate into this decade. Some researchers have noted that increased
investments in prevention, increased employment and wage rates, and changes in policing
practices were associated with the crime drop.6 Various researchers have shown that increased
use of imprisonment during this time was responsible for no more than 20 to 25 percent of the
crime drop and that further increases in the incarceration rate would have diminishing returns on
public safety.7 The crime drop also occurred during a time when the nation experienced a
significant increase in the number of people being admitted to drug treatment programs.8
Increased national treatment admissions and increased federal spending on substance abuse
treatment have been matched by a smaller number of incidents of violent crime and a lower
national violent crime rate. Since 16.6 percent of state prisoners and 18.4 percent of federal
prisoners committed their crimes to get money for drugs,9 lowering the demand for drugs by
providing treatment for people with drug abuse problems may have had public safety benefits.
The past decade has seen a rise in drug treatment admissions and federal spending,
along with a drop in violent crime.
Change from
1995
2000
2005
1995 to 2005
Drug treatment admissions10
Violent crime rate
(per 100,000)11
Federal spending on drug
treatment (millions)

756,269

803,632

1,039,074

+37.4%

684.5

506.5

469.2

-31.5%

$2,175.812

$1,990.913

$2,494.314

+14.6%

6

Blumstein, Alfred. 2006. The crime drop in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Liedka, Raymond V., Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem. 2006. The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does
scale matter? Criminology & Public Policy 5(2): 245-276.
8
National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2005. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS)
Highlights-2005. Drugs include heroin and other opiates, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines/amphetamines.
9
Mumola, Christopher J., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2006. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners,
2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Page 6.
10
National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2005. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS)
Highlights-2005. Drugs include heroin and other opiates, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines/amphetamines.
11
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 1995, 2000, 2005.
12
Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Budget Control Policy: FY 2004 Budget Summary. Table 4:
Historical Drug Control Funding by Function FY 1995 - FY 2004. Online at
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/04budget/fund_tables.pdf.
13
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2005. National Budget Control Policy: FY 2005 Budget Summary Table
3: Historical Drug Control Funding by Function 1997-2006. Online at
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/06budget/funding_tbls.pdf
14
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2005. National Budget Control Policy: FY 2005 Budget Summary Table
3: Historical Drug Control Funding by Function 1997-2006.
7

3

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Percent change (1995-2005)

While drug treatment admissions and federal spending
on drug treatment increased, violent crime fell.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%

37.4%
14.6%

-31.5%
Drug treatment
admissions

Federal spending on
drug treatment

Violent crime rate

Sources: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2005. Treatment Episode
Data Set (TEDS) Highlights-2005. Drugs include heroin and other opiates, cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamines/amphetamines; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Crime
in the United States, 1995, 2000, 2005; Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2005. National
Budget Control Policy: FY 2005 Budget Summary Table 3: Historical Drug Control Funding by
Function 1997-2006.

4

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Case Study: Drug Treatment, Imprisonment, and Public Safety in Maryland
“There’s a long wait for the bed space in rehabilitation programs and if we can get people off
drugs and get them clean and sober, they're not going to be committing any crimes and that's the
ultimate goal.”—Scott Rolle (R), Frederick County state's attorney.15
In 2000, with growing support from the public, treatment providers, the community, and civil
rights advocates, Maryland’s focus shifted from incarceration for drug offenses to a more
treatment-centered mind-set. This change in priorities saw criminal justice referrals for
admission to drug treatment programs in Maryland rise by 28 percent from 2000 to 2004 and
incarceration for drug offenses fall 7 percent in the same period.16 Six of seven areas in the state
have seen an increase in the number of criminal justice referrals to drug treatment, and most have
watched prison admissions for drug offenses decline over the four-year period.17 Baltimore alone
experienced a 10 percent drop in drug prisoner admissions while drug treatment admissions
referred by the criminal justice system grew by 50 percent.
Reliance on drug treatment over incarceration varies greatly among Maryland counties. On
average, Maryland jurisdictions admit 10 people to drug treatment programs for every one
person serving a drug-based jail sentence. In Baltimore City, the ratio was eight to one.18 Most
regions saw prison commitments for drug offenses fall as criminal justice–referred drug
treatment admissions increased between 2000 and 2005.
Eight of the 12 counties with above-average treatment-prisoner index scores saw their crime rate
fall by at least 10 percent between 2000 and 2004.19 Only two of the 12 counties with below
average treatment-prisoner index scores saw their crime rate fall. Each of the five counties in
Maryland that rely most heavily on treatment achieved a major crime-rate reduction compared to
just two of the five counties that rely most heavily on drug imprisonment.
Although rising treatment admissions do not directly cause a drop in prison sentences, it is clear
that a relationship between the two exists in most Maryland regions. In 2005, after reviewing
sentencing patterns in the Baltimore City circuit court, the Campaign for Treatment, Not
Incarceration discovered that sentencing practices shifted as treatment resources increased.
Furthermore, the percentage of drug distribution cases that resulted in 12 months or more of
incarceration fell from 51 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2003. 20 At the same time, criminal
justice drug treatment admissions rose by a third. Evidently, the “treatment not incarceration”
message has begun to take hold in Maryland.

15

Dishneau, David. 2006. Report finds Md.’s commitment to drug rehab over prison flagging. Associated Press,
September 19.
16
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Division of Correction; Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Administration (ADAA).
17
Maryland ADAA.
18
Maryland ADAA.
19
Maryland ADAA.
20
Pranis, Kevin. 2005. Unfinished business: How sentencing guidelines reform can further efforts to reduce
substance abuse in Maryland. Annapolis, MD: Justice Strategies.
5

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

2) Increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with lower incarceration
rates.
Diverting people from prison and jail into therapeutic settings such as drug treatment can lower
prison and jail populations, alleviating some of the overcrowding experienced by many states
and freeing up corrections spending for more effective investments in public safety. Drug
treatment is both less expensive than prison and more effective at reducing recidivism, drug
abuse, and crime.
JPI analyzed data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and found that states with higher drug treatment admission rates had lower
incarceration rates than states with lower admission rates. For example, Rhode Island has a
treatment admission rate that is eight times higher than Idaho’s and at the same time an
incarceration rate that is two and a half times lower. Similarly, Washington State has a drug
treatment rate more than fives higher than Tennessee’s and an incarceration rate that is almost
two times lower.

Average rate (per 100,000)

The 10 states with the highest rate of admissions to
drug treatment send, on average, 150 fewer people per
100,000 to prison than the national average.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

National
Top 10
Bottom 10

797.76

491
433.7

436.1
340.2
167.05

Drug treatment admissions

Incarceration

Note: The top 10 states are New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware,
Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and Missouri. The bottom 10 states are
Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin,
Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, and Idaho. Sources: National Admissions to Substance
Abuse Treatment Services, 2005. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights-2005;
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2006. Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

6

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send, on
average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have
lower than average drug treatment admissions.21
Of the 20 states with the highest drug treatment
admission rates, 19 have lower incarceration rates
than the national average.
2005

Drug treatment
admissions, age 12
and over
(per 100,000)

Of the 20 states with the lowest drug treatment
admission rates, 8 have higher incarceration rates
than the national average.

Incarceration
rate
(per 100,000)

2005

Drug treatment
admissions, age
12 and over
(per 100,000)
433.70
369.28

Incarceration
rate
(per 100,000)
491
533

U.S. Total
New York

433.70
994.64

491
326

U.S. Total
Georgia

Connecticut

973.05

373

Kansas

366.79

330

Maryland

932.35

394

Indiana

365.42

388
525

Rhode Island

875.33

189

South Carolina

351.81

Delaware

838.26

467

Oklahoma

336.20

652

Vermont

716.08

247

Nevada

334.53

474

Oregon

703.00

365

Virginia

288.94

464
245

Washington

691.02

273

Nebraska

278.76

Massachusetts

635.08

239

Alabama

275.80

591

Missouri

618.81

529

Arizona

247.81

521

Iowa

608.58

294

Kentucky

224.42

459
192

South Dakota

560.16

443

New Hampshire

206.91

New Jersey

546.89

313

North Dakota

184.10

208

Minnesota

540.69

180

Texas

179.94

691

Maine

530.09

144

North Carolina

168.83

360
380

Illinois

500.96

351

Wisconsin

162.46

Colorado

495.89

457

Mississippi

161.63

660

California

493.27

466

Florida

148.74

499

Utah

476.62

252

Tennessee

127.90

440

Idaho

105.56

472

Montana

460.59

373

244.29
454.20
Average
659.57
333.75
Average
Notes: Alaska, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming were excluded from these calculations due to incomplete
treatment admissions data. Sources: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2005. Treatment
Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights-2005; Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2006. Prisoners in 2005.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

21

Alaska, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming were excluded from these calculations due to incomplete
treatment admissions data. The 23 states with higher drug treatment admission rates than the national average had,
on average, an incarceration rate of 354.43 per 100,000. The 23 states with lower than average drug treatment
admission rates had, on average, an incarceration rate of 454.43 per 100,000.
7

Case Study: California—Proposition 36
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), or Proposition 36, was put into effect in
California in 2001 in order to reduce the use of incarceration for nonviolent offenders, reduce drug-related crime and
increase public health. It requires the use of drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent adult
offenders convicted of drug possession for personal use.22 From its passage in November 2000 to December 2005, the
rate of people incarcerated for drug possession in California dropped by 34.3 percent, from 89 to 58 people per
100,000.23 Implementation of SACPA may not be the sole cause of this rapid decrease; there were, however, no other
major public policy changes during this time.
According to the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), this same period saw a 25.9
percent increase in the number of drug treatment facilities in California, but a 2.83 percent decrease nationally when
California is excluded.24 Along with this increase in treatment facilities, the number of substance abuse clients in
California increased 34.1 percent from 2000 to 2004. Excluding California, the nation as a whole only had a 4 percent
increase in the number of treatment clients during this time.25 As California’s violent crime rate decreased more
rapidly than the nation’s, the number of California treatment facilities and clients increased.
Those opposing Proposition 36 feared that this decrease in incarceration would lead to an increase in violent crime. In
fact, from 2000 to 2004 California’s violent crime rate decreased by 11.2 percent while at the same time the national
average violent crime rate fell by 8.1 percent.26
Not only did California experience a decrease in violent crime, but the state also saved a substantial amount of money.
Using the year 2000 as a baseline for drug possession prison admissions, a Justice Policy Institute (JPI) report
estimated that the state saved more than $350 million from 2000 to June 2006 (the end of the initiative’s funding) by
using drug treatment as an alternative to prison.27 (Researchers took the cost of the drug treatment programming into
account in calculating savings.) Using a similar methodology, JPI found that California saved an additional $62
million in jail costs through the implementation of Proposition 36.28 JPI estimates that California saved a total of $412
million on prison and jail operating costs alone over six and a half years.
The University of California’s cost analysis of Proposition 36 also showed substantial cost savings. The study showed
that California saved a minimum of $2.50 for every dollar spent on the treatment alternative, $4 per person who
completed treatment, and a total of $173.3 million in savings to the California government in the first year alone.29
The cost savings from Proposition 36 are available to be spent on more cost-effective public safety policies for
Californians.

22

California Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Office of Criminal Justice Collaboration. Fact Sheet: Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act of 2000.
23
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Data Analysis Unit. Characteristics of Population in California State
Prisons by Institution, June 30, 1999, December 31, 1999, and June 30, 2000 reports; Prison Census Data, December 31, 2000December 31, 2005 reports.
24
Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey of Substance Abuse
Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2004, Table 6.2(a). Online at http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/04nssats/nssats04_tbl6.2a.htm.
25
Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey of Substance Abuse
Treatment Services (N-SSATS).
26
2000-2003: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, downloaded January 28,
2006; 2004: FBI, 2004 Uniform Crime Report, Table 5, pp. 86-96.
27
Ehlers, Scott, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006. Proposition 36: Five years later. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Page 24.
28
Ehlers, Scott, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006.
29
Longshore, Douglas et al. SACPA Cost Analysis Report (First and Second Years). 2006. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance
Abuse Programs.
8

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

3) Substance abuse treatment prior to contact with the justice system yields public
safety benefits early on.
Substance-involved individuals30 have come to compose a large portion of the prison population,
and substance use may play a part in the commission of certain crimes. According to a recent
Bureau of Justice Statistics report,
•
•
•
•

53 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners meet criterion of drug
abuse or dependence;
16.6 percent of state prisoners and 18.4 percent of federal prisoners committed their
crimes to obtain money for drugs;
one in three state prisoners reported using drugs at the time of their offense, and one in
four violent offenders reported drug use at the time of their crime; and
64 percent of state prisoners who committed a property offense reported drug use in the
month prior to arrest, and 38 percent reported use during the time of the offense. 31

Participation in a drug treatment program has been shown to reduce the chances that a druginvolved person will commit crime. The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study
(NTIES) showed that drug treatment significantly reduced respondents’ self-reported criminal
activity: a 78.3 percent reduction in drug selling, an 81.6 percent decline in shoplifting, a 64.3
percent reduction in arrests for any crime, and a 48.3 percent reduction in supporting themselves
through illegal activities.32

30

The term “substance-involved offender” refers to an inmate with one or more of the following characteristics: ever
used illegal drugs regularly; convicted of a drug law violation; convicted of a DUI; under the influence of drugs
and/or alcohol during the crime that led to incarceration; committed offense to get money for drugs; had a history of
alcohol abuse.
31
Mumola, Christopher J., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2006.
32
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association,
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.1997. The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study: NTIES
Highlights. Online at http://www.ncjrs.gov/nties97/index.htm
9

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Treatment can reduce the chance that someone will be involved in
criminal activity
70%

64.0%

63.7%

60%
48.2%

50%
40%
30%
20%

17.2%

13.9%

17.4%

11.7%

9.0%

10%
0%
Selling Drugs

Shoplifitng

Arrests

Supported by
Illegal Activities
12 Months Before Treatment
12 Months After Treatment
Sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Association, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 1997. The National Treatment
Improvement Evaluation Study: NTIES Highlights.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study revealed that clients who participated in
federally funded substance abuse treatment programs were not only able to reduce their drug use
by about 50 percent, but were also able to make other substantial changes in their lives that
decreased the need for public services, yielding savings related to fewer hospital visits and less
involvement in the criminal justice system.33 The overall mental and physical health of the
patients improved as they reported reduced numbers of medical visits and safer sexual habits.
Treatment can improve quality of life and can benefit the community.
80%

72.8%

70%

60.3%

60%

50.8%

50%
40%

39.7%

37.7%

35.4%

30%
19.2%

20%

11%

10%
0%
Use of Primary Employment
Drug
Rate
Before Treatment

Use of Welfare

Homelessness
Rate

After Treatment

Sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Association, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 1997. The National
Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study: NTIES Highlights.

33

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association,
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 1997.
10

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

4) Treatment helps people make the transition from the criminal justice system to the
community.
“Detox alone in jail or prison is not treatment. Without proven treatment and therapeutic followup in a community setting, addicted offenders are at a high risk of relapse despite a long period
of forced sobriety. These principles also apply to court-mandated treatment interventions that
replace incarceration with community programs.”—Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the
National Institute on Drug Abuse34
Increased use of drug treatment within the criminal justice system, whether it is mandated
treatment through drug courts or optional treatment through transitional and aftercare programs,
has been shown to reduce re-arrest and new arrest rates, as well as drug use.35 State prisoner
participation in drug treatment programs increased from 34.3 percent in 1997 to 39.2 percent in
2004, coinciding with the continued decrease in crime rates.36
Although drug treatment in prison or jail can be a means of reducing the chances that a person
will commit crime in the future, community-based treatment is more effective and helps people
reintegrate themselves into the community. An in-depth study of a Delaware prison revealed that
compared to in-prison drug treatment, a transitional program composed of a combination of work
release, drug treatment, and aftercare services provided a more effective environment for
successful prisoner reentry.37 Five years after the completion of this program, 59.6 percent of
those who graduated from the aftercare program had no new arrests, and 47.8 percent did not
return to prison or jail.38

34

National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA announces recommendations to treat drug abusers, save money, and
reduce crime. Press release July 24, 2006. Online at: http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/06/NR7-24.html
35
Inciardi, James A., Steven S. Martin, and Clifford A. Butzin. 2004. Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community
treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime and Delinquency 50 (1): 88-107.
36
Mumola, Christopher J., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2006. FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States.
37
Butzin, Clifford A., Daniel J. O’Connell, Steven S. Martin, and James A. Inciardi. 2006. Effect of drug treatment
during work release on new arrests and incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice 34: 557-565.
38
Butzin, Clifford A., Daniel J. O’Connell, Steven S. Martin, and James A. Inciardi. 2006.
11

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Treatment-oriented supervision lowers recidivism rates more
than all other drug treatment programs
Intensive Supervision: Treatment-Oriented
Programs

-16.7%

Drug Treatment in Community

-9.3%

Adult Drug Courts

-8.0%

Drug Treatment in Prison

-5.7%

Drug Treatment in Jail

-4.5%
-18%

-15%

-12%

-9%

-6%

-3%

0%

Sources: Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. 2006. Evidence-based public policy options to
reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State
Institute for Public Policy. Online at www.wsipp.wa.gov; Aos, Steve. 2003. The criminal justice system in
Washington State: Incarceration rates, taxpayer costs, crime rates and prison economics. Olympia:
Washington State Institute of Public Policy.

12

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

5) Drug treatment is more cost-effective than prison or other punitive measures.

“Recent studies show it is actually less expensive for communities to treat drug-abusing
offenders than to let them sit in jail or prison. It is estimated that every dollar invested in
addiction treatment programs yields a return of $4 to $7 in reduced drug-related crimes. Savings
for some outpatient programs can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.” —Dr. Nora D. Volkow,
director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse39
Although states put a substantial amount of money into substance abuse services, only a small
percentage is spent on services like prevention and treatment. According to the National Center
for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, states spent $81.3 billion on
substance abuse in 1998.40 However, only $3 billion of this money went toward treatment and
prevention; the rest was spent dealing with the consequences of substance abuse. Most of the
state-level substance abuse budget is spent within the criminal justice system, on education, child
and family assistance, and mental health.
•

•

•

•

At the American Correctional Association estimate of $67.55 for incarcerating one
person for one day, the cost of incarcerating 508,623 people who have committed drug
offenses is approximately $8 billion per year.41
According to the National Center for Addition and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, states spent $4.4 billion on juvenile corrections in 1998. Of this $4.4 billion,
66.3 percent or $2.9 billion went toward “substance-involved youth.”42
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, health care costs attributable to
drug abuse were projected to total $15.8 billion in 2002.43 When these costs are combined
with alcohol and tobacco costs, the country spent more than $500 billion for health care,
criminal justice, and lost productivity relating to addiction.44
The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimated that the total cost of drug abuse
was $180.9 billion in 2002, and that almost 60 percent ($107.8 billion) was related to
crime.45 According to this report, the largest component of these costs was attributable to

39

Volkow, Nora D. 2006.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. 2001. Shoveling up: The impact
of substance abuse on state budgets. Page 1.
41
Number of drug prisoners: Harrison, Paige, and Allen J. Beck. 2006. Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Annual cost of incarcerating one person for one day: American Correctional Association. 2006.
2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole
Authorities, 67th edition. Alexandria, VA: ACA.
42
For purposes of the CASA study, the term “substance-involved youth” refers to a youth with one or more of the
following characteristics: ever used illegal drugs regularly; convicted of a drug law violation; convicted of a DUI;
under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol during the crime that led to incarceration; committed offense to get
money for drugs; had a history of alcohol abuse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University. 2001. Shoveling up: The impact of substance abuse on state budgets. Page 16.
43
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2004. The economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, 1992-2002.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. 207303). Page ix.
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/economic_costs/economic_costs.pdf.
44
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2006. NIDA InfoFacts: Treatment approaches for drug addiction. Pages 1-2.
Online at www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/InfoFacts/Treatment06.pdf.
45
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2004.
40

13

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

•

loss of productivity due to criminal activities, including incarceration of drug-involved
offenders.
A 2001 study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University found that 32.1 percent, or $7.7 billion of states’ $24.9 billion budget for child
welfare is strongly linked to substance abuse problems.46

Findings from a 1996 report by the Institute of Medicine revealed that substance abuse treatment
is less expensive and more cost-effective than incarceration, or leaving drug addiction
untreated.47 Since that report, numerous other studies have substantiated the fact that drug
treatment is less expensive and more cost-effective than incarceration. The National Treatment
Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) found that “treatment appears to be cost-effective,
particularly when compared to incarceration, which is often the alternative.”48 These researchers
found that the costs of drug treatment varied from $1,800 to $6,800 per client, and that drug
treatment in a prison or jail setting cost an additional $24 per day over the everyday costs of
incarceration. Providing drug treatment in the community is less expensive than providing
treatment in correctional facilities.
Most forms of drug treatment are more cost-effective than incarceration.
Cost ($)
49
Incarceration per year
24,655
50
Probation per year
1,525
51
Work release (5 months)
1,604
52
Work release with treatment (5 months)
1,937
53
Work release with treatment and aftercare (5 months)
2,539
54
Drug court
2,459
Lengthy and intensive treatment programs may or may not be less expensive in the short term in
comparison to incarceration costs. Over a longer time period, however, spending on treatment

46

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. 2001. Page. 17.
Institute of Medicine. 1996. Pathways of addiction—Opportunities in drug abuse research. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, p.199 Figure 8.1
48
NTIES Findings on cost of treatment. 1997. Online at http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govstudy/f027/costs.aspx (accessed
September 12, 2007).
49
American Correctional Association. 2006. 2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments,
Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities, 67th edition. Alexandria, VA: ACA.
50
Camp, Camille Graham. 2002. The 2002 Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections. Middletown, CT: Criminal
Justice Institute Inc.
51
McCollister, Kathryn E., Michael T. French, James A. Inciardi, Clifford A. Butzin, Steven S. Martin, and Robert
M. Hooper. 2003. Post-release substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19: 389-407.
52
McCollister, Kathryn E., Michael T. French, James A. Inciardi, Clifford A. Butzin, Steven S. Martin, and Robert
M. Hooper. 2003.
53
McCollister, Kathryn E., Michael T. French, James A. Inciardi, Clifford A. Butzin, Steven S. Martin, and Robert
M. Hooper. 2003.
54
Drug Courts Program. Office, Office of Justice Programs. 2001. Executive Summary: Treatment services in adult
drug courts. Washington, DC: National Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities.
47

14

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

can reduce long-term unemployment, family assistance, incarceration, homelessness, and
medical care.55 The collateral costs of drug-related crime would also be reduced.
•

•

•

According to the California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA),
every $1 invested in substance abuse treatment has a return of $7 in cost savings from
social benefits such as reduced health costs, crime, and lost productivity.56
The National Institute for Drug Abuse estimates that for every dollar spent on addiction
treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crimes.57
With some outpatient programs, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found not only that drug
treatment conducted within the community is extremely beneficial in terms of costs,
especially compared to prison, but also that it is second only to treatment-oriented
supervision in reducing recidivism rates.58 Every dollar spent on drug treatment in the
community is estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society.

Benefits (per dollar spent)

Community-based drug treatment provides greater
returns than prison.
$20
$18
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$-

$18.52

$5.88
$2.10
$0.37
Prison

Adult drug
courts

Drug treatment Drug treatment
in prison
in community

Sources: Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. 2006. Evidence-based public
policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates.
Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Online at www.wsipp.wa.gov; Aos,
Steve. 2003. The criminal justice system in Washington State: Incarceration rates, taxpayer
costs, crime rates and prison economics. Olympia: Washington State Institute of Public
Policy.

55

McCollister, Kathryn E., Michael T. French, James A. Inciardi, Clifford A. Butzin, Steven S. Martin, and Robert
M. Hooper. 2003.
56
National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. 1994. Evaluating recovery services: California
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), Executive Summary. California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs.
57
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2006. NIDA InfoFacts: Treatment approaches for drug addiction.pgs 1-2.
Online at www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/InfoFacts/Treatment06.pdf.
58
Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. 2006. Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future
prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Online at www.wsipp.wa.gov; Aos, Steve. 2003. The criminal justice system in Washington State: Incarceration
rates, taxpayer costs, crime rates and prison economics. Olympia: Washington State Institute of Public Policy.
15

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Recommendations

2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

California's violent crime rate dropped 11.2 percent
while the number of drug treatment facilities increased
25.9 percent.

640
620
600
580
560
540
520

Violent crime rate (per 100,000)

Number of treatment facilities

Increased investments in drug treatment can yield benefits in public safety, cost savings, and
improved lives for individuals. Drug treatment can help people return to employment, education
or to become involved in other social activities that build communities and promote public
safety. As profiled in this brief, the relationship between public safety and the availability of
drug treatment is noticeable in states where the association has been studied. From 2000 to 2004,
California established more treatment facilities and at the same time experienced a significant
reduction in violent crime.59

500
2000

2002
Treatment Facilities

2003
2004
Violent crime rate

Source: Ehlers, Scott, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006. Proposition 36: Five years later.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Research cited in this policy brief has shown that the initiation of drug treatment prior to
involvement with the criminal justice system is the most beneficial and effective means of
delivering services to drug-involved people. Though drug treatment in a prison setting is helpful,
drug-involved people are better served with drug treatment programs in the community.
Community-based drug treatment programs encourage successful transition to communities,
which reduces the chance that a person will become involved in crime or the criminal justice
system in the future.

59

Ehlers, Scott, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006.

16

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety

Research limitations
Although investments in drug treatment, education, employment, and other social factors have
been shown to promote public safety and healthy communities, there is no single solution that
will reduce the chance that a person will be involved in criminal activity. The research is not
conclusive on what one factor might solve every community’s public safety challenges; different
communities have different needs, and what works for one may not work for another. All of
these social factors should be considered in the context of individual communities in order to
establish policies that effectively ensure public safety.

Acknowledgements
This policy brief was researched and written by Nila Natarajan, Amanda Petteruti, Nastassia
Walsh, and Jason Ziedenberg. The JPI staff includes Sheila Bedi, Debra Glapion, LaWanda
Johnson, Laura Jones and Emily Sydnor. This report would not have been possible without
generous support from the Open Society Institute – New York, the Public Welfare Foundation,
and individual donors to JPI.

17