It is important to note that although there is a glaring disparity in the results for each category in comparing the two programs, when the 24-month statistics are utilized for R. J. Donovan the results virtually match those of Amity for 36-months. For our purposes, however, it is the trend of the statistics that is enlightening. The numbers provide us with this clarity – without community-based aftercare treatment, in-prison treatment accomplishes little, if anything, in reducing recidivism. Why is that?

     In Recovery & The Law, Part VI – "On the Inside", I stated my conclusions based on personal experience in the effort to provide treatment in a prison setting:

"Without exception, those who are active in the 12-Step community, as well as treatment professionals will concur that the fundamental ingredients necessary for meaningful recovery are honesty, openness, willingness, and trust. Anyone who has ventured inside the concrete and steel edifices that are our jails and prisons, whether as an inmate or staff member, knows that the atmosphere is not conducive, and, in reality, counterproductive to these prerequisites of recovery. Inmates not only do not trust staff members, but also cannot and will not trust their fellows. In the correctional setting, lying, isolating, closed-mindedness and mistrust are seen as essential survival skills. To break through these defenses is difficult in community-based treatment, but on the inside it is more often than not impossible. This is, I believe, the primary obstacle to providing correctional substance abuse treatment that will successfully reach a substantial portion of those inmates participating."

     The numbers now confirm this reality. It is a staggering, sobering landscape that we see. Recidivism appears to run anywhere from 50 – 75%, regardless of treatment in-custody. What does that say about the deterrent effect of incarceration? What does it say about the rehabilitative prospects? And, what of the clear message revealed by these statistics – that the possibilities of rehabilitation and substantial reduction of recidivism rates are dramatically increased by offenders involvement in community-based treatment?

     The result of posing these questions may very well lead us to the conclusion of the proponents of Proposition 36 in California. Drug offenders need community-based treatment, not incarceration. But this fails to consider the true dynamics of the driving force behind the offenders’ criminal/anti-social behavior – the disease of addiction. As I stated in Recovery & The Law, Part IX – "Truth in Consequences":

"What does this say about offering treatment only to first or second-time offenders and thereafter punishing the resulting negative behavior as in California’s Proposition 36? It may be that we are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Without having yet experienced significant negative consequences, what are the chances that an alcoholic or addict will get it? In my experience and, for that matter, in the 65-plus years of AA’s existence – the prognosis is less than promising.

"So, what is the answer? I believe it is that same illusive commodity that those in recovery seek – balance. Somehow, we must fashion a system that will ultimately balance the two approaches: treatment & punishment. One without the other will not achieve success for a substantial number of those afflicted with the disease of addiction. And, perhaps, in that balance, we need to recognize that consequences need to precede treatment……not the other way around. Instead of creating a system, which completely avoids significant consequences in lieu of treatment for first and second-time offenders, only to preclude treatment for those who commit a third or subsequent offense, we need to factor in an understanding of the dynamics of the grieving process. Denial is real, anger experienced, bargaining occurs, depression essential, and acceptance the goal. But none of it is possible unless we allow the alcoholic or addict to suffer the pain of the loss. To do that, there must be consequences.

"But what are the realistic means to this end? Perhaps, the answer lies in considering that at each bump in the road of life due to the disease of addiction, an alcoholic or addict should experience some consequence as well as being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. This would mean that the first offense produces a punishment consequence coupled with a meaningful period in treatment. A second offense would produce a greater punishment coupled with a somewhat longer period of treatment. The next offense would up the ante further, and so on. But this scenario cannot continue ad infinitum. Society depends upon adherence to boundaries for acceptable behavior. Eventually, an alcoholic or addict’s repeated illegal activity leaves the legal system with no alternative but incarceration. For these unfortunate souls, treatment inside is their only remaining option, regardless of its probable ineffectiveness."

     If we have eyes to see; ears to hear – the picture is clear; the light of enlightenment bright. The solution to the treatment of those whose addiction has resulted in criminal/anti-social behavior is community-based treatment. On the front end of the legal system this treatment must be provided in a balanced program. One that does not preclude penal consequences, but fashions a balanced approach allowing the offender to suffer some pain, while providing rehabilitation and treatment in a non-correctional setting where the curative, conducive atmosphere of honesty, openness, willingness and trust is not compromised. For those unfortunate souls who do not and cannot be afforded this opportunity, community-based treatment must be provided post-release from incarceration to reduce recidivism of parolees. To do anything less is to ignore the clear message of the numbers we have considered. To turn a blind eye, to see these statistics only as a confirmation of the success of prison-based treatment, is to ignore the obvious. "Those who have eyes will see. Those who have ears will hear."

     Next month in Recovery & The Law, Part XII, we will continue our journey for knowledge, understanding, solution and resolve. Please join me.

     Daniel V. Lane is a former attorney with an undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California and a degree of Juris Doctor from Southwestern University School of Law. His experience in the field of chemical dependency includes both correctional and community-based treatment settings. He is SASCA Case Manager for Cornerstone of Southern California and has certifications as a supervisory level Criminal Reformation Clinician and a Master Addictions Forensic Counselor. He is the author of numerous articles in regional and national professional publications in addition to his ongoing series, "Recovery & The Law," currently appearing at www.anonymousone.com. In addition to writing in the field of chemical dependency, he frequently lectures on a variety of recovery topics, including spirituality & the 12-Steps, the diseases of addiction and the use of rational emotive therapeutic techniques in recovery. You can contact Dan at (714) 547-2061 or by e-mail bluephoenix@Adelphia.net