In the article “When hope, heartbreak collide” (Page 1, Sept. 29) Christi Parsons reported on the fate of Ron Menzie, an Illinois Department of Corrections inmate who received treatment at Southwestern Correctional Center for his substance-abuse addiction but fell once he was on the streets of Chicago again. I would have to disagree with a few of the conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment in correctional facilities, and how we define a “success” or “failure” when dealing with hard-core substance abusers.
The Gateway Foundation has been providing treatment to substance abusers in communities throughout Illinois since 1968, and began correctional-based programming in 1980. Last year, the foundation treated 2,900 offenders in Cook County and Illinois Department of Corrections facilities; another 4,000 were treated in our national programs. On any given day, Gateway is treating 3,000 persons in jail and prison–working with them to become ex-addicts and ex-offenders for good.
Does treatment work? Yes. There is plenty of solid evidence that proves treatment can make a significant difference in whether offenders return to prison (recidivism) and whether they continue dangerous, criminal or addictive behavior once treated, and that points to the cost-effectiveness of treatment as an adjunct to incarceration. Prison-based treatment is an effective means of getting addicts into treatment and keeping them there. The alternative–an expensive and dangerous cycle of addiction, crime, violence and incarceration–is not viable.
Ms. Parson rightly points out the need to evaluate prison treatment programs to determine their effectiveness. Gateway’s programs rely on independent evaluations to determine what works. Two recent studies, one conducted at Cook County Jail and the other at the Dwight prison, found that treatment reduced rearrest rates significantly. The preliminary results of the study at Sheridan Corrrectional Center, mentioned in the article, also show dramatic and positive outcomes.
Importantly, all of the studies indicated that the longer an inmate remained in treatment, the more likely a successful outcome. Other national studies, including one completed by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, tracked more than 5,000 clients and found that 12 months after treatment, their usage of illegal drugs and alcohol and the accompanying criminal behavior was dramatically reduced. For example, those arrested for any crime fell to 17 percent after treatment compared to 48 percent prior to treatment.
It is important to recognize with ex-offenders or anyone else who has a substance-abuse addiction that treatment is not a one-time “cure.” It is more often a process that introduces new thinking, behaviors and patterns into the life of an addict. Most successful recovering addicts and treatment professionals will tell you that relapse is often a stop on the road to permanent recovery.
It is notable that Menzie sought out and returned to treatment on his own, that “the program opened his eyes to the roots of his addiction.” It is unlikely that without the prison-based program to introduce the concepts of treatment and recovery he would have ever given it a second thought. We should not brand him a failure for his relapse; he will fail if he stops trying.
