Feds fail to use effective drug treatment plans in prison

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Despite 20 years of scientific evidence showing that drug treatment programs work, the feds fail to offer enough of them to prisoners, according to a new study. Currently 7.1 million adults—over 2 percent of the population—in the U.S. are locked up or on probation; about half of them suffer from some kind of addictionheroin, alcohol, crack, crystal meth, you name it—but only 20 percent of those addicts actually get effective treatment, say researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

"For every dollar that you spend on treatment of substance abuse in the criminal justice system, it saves society on average four dollars," says study co-author NIDA director Nora Volkow, a psychiatrist.

Among the studies Volkow and her colleagues reviewed: one of heroin addicts treated with methadone in prison, a treatment program that they continued when they were released. That study found that addicts who received no treatment were seven times more likely than their rehabbed compeers to become addicted to heroin again once back on the streets and three times more likely to commit a crime and land back in prison.

The rehab programs save money that otherwise will likely be spent on re-incarceration of drug addicts and treatment of psychiatric disorders and diseases such as HIV or AIDS that they may contract from dirty needles used to satisfy their addictions, Volkow says.

"Many people with addiction also have psychiatric disorders," she says, noting that recreational drug use often exacerbates the problem. (In fact, more mentally ill people are housed in prisons than psychiatric hospitals in the U.S. "The Los Angeles County jail, with 3,400 mentally ill prisoners, functions as the largest psychiatric inpatient institution in the United States," according to a 2003 report by The New York Times.)
 
Volkow stressed the rehab programs only work if continued after addicts are released from lockups. 

"Addiction is a chronic disease. …For treatment to be effective, you have to provide continuing care," she says. "In some instances, some patients have to maintain [treatment] for several years."

Image credit ©iStockphoto.com/LOU OATES

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe