In the last three decades, the United States has seen incarceration rates and prison

population skyrocket to record highs as America has become the country with the highest

incarceration rate in the world. According to the Bureau of Justice, over 1.5 million people were

incarcerated in the United States in 2014, and the Huffington Post reports that 716 out of every

100,000 people were incarcerated in 2013, a number not even rivaled by any countries of

comparable size. There are various causes to this problem, but it is primarily caused by

recidivism. Recidivism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a tendency to relapse into a previous

condition or mode of behavior, especially criminal behavior. Political pressure has been

mounting on elected officials in recent years, and the out of control prison population has

become a hotly debated issue on the 2016 campaign trail. There has been a seemingly endless

number of proposed solutions to this issue, such as the legalization of drugs like marijuana,

shorter prison sentences, and more lenient laws. However most of these solutions have little

chance of actually being employed in real life, and the few that are utilized simply do not work

for a variety of reasons. In order to combat the over population of American prisons, and more

specifically recidivism, it is necessary to implement and further both drug rehabilitation

facilities, as well as vocational programs for American inmates.

On the topic of recidivism, the National Institute of Justice statistics, a government

funded program that, as the name implies, researches data pertaining to the Criminal Justice

system, has the following to say on the topic of recidivism:

Recidivism is one of the most fundamental concepts in criminal justice. It refers to a

person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or
undergoes intervention for a previous crime. Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that
resulted in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence
during a three-year period following the prisoner's release.
 Recidivism occurs for many different reasons, usually depending on the individual

prisoner. Some prisoners are drug users, and require rehabilitation to break their addiction, but

are instead locked up in prison or jail, leaving them prone to go back to the drugs that got them

in trouble in the first place. Others serve their time in prison and are released without money or

the skills required to be a productive member of society. Much like their drug addicted

counterparts, these ex-convicts tend to revert to the same behavior that got them incarcerated

primarily. In a 2014 press release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that of 405,000

prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release

from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years. It is almost mind

bending to consider that the vast majority of prisoners locked up at this moment have already

been to prison before. This outstanding issue of recidivism leads one to the conclusion that, if

only there was a way to keep ex convicts out of prison, the incarceration rate in America would

plummet.

That being considered, there are ways to lower recidivism and stop convicts from

repeating their mistakes. The first way in which to do this is through the use of educational,

vocational, and job training programs in prisons. As mentioned previously, the current system

does a disservice to the criminals by failing to provide them with the necessary tools to make a

better life for themselves and not return to prison. The prison fellowship, who, according to their

website, trains and inspires churches and communitiesinside and outside of prisonto

support the restoration of those affected by incarceration has the following to say about the

necessity of vocational and educational programs in prisons:

 Many ex-prisoners lack even the basic skills to start hunting for a job once they get out.
Nationwide, 70 percent of prison inmates function at the low end of the literacy range
making it tough to understand a classified ad, fill out a job application, or write a business
letter. With so many challenges stacked against them, re-arrests are common within the
first six months of release.

Vocational training programs are effective because inmates with job skills are less likely

to revert to the illegal tendencies of their past. The RAND corporation, one of the worlds

leading researching institutes, conducted a massive study which they referred to as the largest-

ever meta-analysis of correctional educational studies. After which, the corporation had the

following to say on this issue:

Employment after release was 13 percent higher among prisoners who participated in
either academic or vocational education programs than those who did not. Those who
participated in vocational training were 28 percent more likely to be employed after
release from prison than who did not receive such training.

This presents undeniable evidence that vocational programs do work, and may cause one to

wonder about why, with this effectiveness, they are not widely utilized in the American criminal

justice system. There are a variety of reasons for this, with the most prevalent being budget cuts

and an overall lack of funding.

Matt Clarke, in an article for Prison Legal News, writes that Congress failed to renew

federal funding in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for a grant program that helps finance higher education

courses for prisoners This, along with other budget cuts, has left prisoners high and dry without

many programs that could be beneficial to them upon their release.

In all honesty, it makes perfect sense that, of all things, educational programs in prisons

would be one of the first things to go when dealing with federal budget cuts. After all, they are

prisoners, wards of the state, and they voluntarily forfeited the right to an education and a better
life when they committed the crime that got them locked up. In fact, the average law abiding

citizen living in the United States has to pay for their own education after high school, whether it

be through a vocational school, a community college, or a University. These are also being added

to the expenses of a place to live, food, and transportation (all things that prisoners already get

from the government). Considering these arguments, its perfectly reasonable that somebody

could be opposed to prisoners receiving a taxpayer funded education.

The argument against funding a prisoners eduction is furthered by the fact that,

according to the Bureau of Prisons, In-prison vocational training costs on average $1960.

According to this statistic, even if only half of American prisoners received vocational training, it

would still cost the government almost one and a half billion dollars.

While the argument against vocational training for inmates is certainly strong, it is rarely

thought out and undeniably nearsighted. While it is true that these programs are costly, it must

also be considered that the criminal justice system is going to be expensive regardless, and

although they may cost a lot up front, they actually save taxpayer money in the long run. The

previously cited study conducted by the Rand corporation had the following to say about the cost

effective qualities of educational programs in prison:

The findings, from the largest-ever meta-analysis of correctional educational studies, suggest that
prison education programs are cost effective, with a $1 investment in prison education reducing
incarceration costs by $4 to $5 during the first three years post-release.

The Rand corporation was not alone in this claim, as they are also supported by many

studies and articles, including one written by Allie Bidwell, in which she states:

Educational programs cost about $1,400 to $1,744 per inmate each year, according to the report,
and can save prisons between $8,700 and $9,700 per inmate, the costs associated with
incarcerating them again. Put another way, each dollar spent on funding prison education
programs reduces incarceration costs by $4 to $5 during the first three years after an individual is
released, the period when those leaving prison are most likely to return.

The Bureau of Prisons also supports this claim, saying that prison vocational programs have a

net cost savings of $12,017 for each program participant. So if the United States government

did spend that whopping 1.5 Billion dollars on educating prisoners,it would actually save six

times that amount in the long run, making it more than a worthy investment.

As previously mentioned, the problem of recidivism among incarcerated Americans can

not be solved solely through vocational programs, even with their rate of success, as it is also

necessary that rehabilitation programs be expanded and further implemented.

The benefit of drug rehabilitation programs, like, vocational programs, is two fold in that

it reduces recidivism as well as saves money. Drug addiction is a unique crime, unlike any other

and, seeing as such, it seems reasonable that drug offenders be treated in a different way. In

recent decades, America has seen a shift in the treatment of drug addicts, where addiction has

gone from being viewed as a certain type of weakness, to being viewed as a disease that needs to

be treated. However, even with this shift, many Americans still believe that drug addicts should

be dealt with harshly, in a more traditional manner. People of this view point argue that all

criminals should be dealt in a similar manner, and that prison alone should be incentive enough

for drug users to kick their habit once and for all. The primary issue with this argument is that it

hinges upon the assumption that drug users will somehow be scared out of their addiction.

Any reputable doctor educated upon the subject, or even any former addict would scoff at

this assumption. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Addiction is a chronic, often relapsing brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and
use, despite harmful consequences to the addicted individual and to those around him or her.
Although the initial decision to take drugs is voluntary for most people, the brain changes that
occur over time challenge an addicted persons self-control and hamper his or her ability to resist
intense impulses to take drugs.

This claim is supported by countless doctors, researchers, and other various experts on the

subject. The simple fact of the matter is that, upon their release, drug users will revert back to

drugs, as they have not received any help dealing with their problem.

Oftentimes, prisoners do not even wait for their release to pick their drug habit back up,

as drug use inside prisons is rampant. This is illustrated in a Washington Times article, which

reports:

In many large state prison systems, a mix of inmate ingenuity, complicit visitors and corrupt staff
has kept the level of inmate drug abuse constant over the past decade despite concerted efforts to
reduce it. A recent boom in cell-phone smuggling has complicated matters, with inmates
sometimes using phones to arrange drug deliveries.

The article goes on to talk about the different ways in which prisoners are able to obtain drugs,

saying:

Drugs reach inmates in numerous ways via visiting relatives, by mail, through the complicity
of prison staff and by inmates who smuggle in drugs dropped off by associates at off-prison work
sites.
Josh Gelinas, spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Corrections, said smuggling
tactics shifted after the state installed X-ray machines and metal detectors at all medium- and
high-security prisons. Drug packets now are sometimes launched over prison walls by paintball
guns and homemade launchers known as spud guns.

As proven by these previously cited sources, prison does little, if anything to stop drug abusers

from using drugs and the criminal justice system is essentially throwing away the tax payers

money. This is why it is essential that the criminal justice system further the use of rehabilitation

facilities for drug addicts.

 Rehabilitation facilities have been proven to work and, according to the national institute

of Drug Abuse,

Scientific research shows that treatment can help many drug using offenders change their
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; avoid relapse; and successfully remove themselves from a life
of substance use and crime. Treatment can cut drug use in half, decrease criminal activity, and
reduce arrests. It is true that legal pressure might be needed to get a person into treatment and
help them stay there. Once in a treatment program, however, even those who are not initially
motivated to change can become engaged in a continuing treatment process. In fact, research
suggests that mandated treatment can be just as effective as voluntary admission to rehab centers

Drug rehabilitation programms almost undoubtedly effective and, given the facts, arguing

against these programs are futile. However, despite their effectiveness, there is still a lack of

these programs in use. Much like vocational counterparts, drug rehabilitation programs lack

adequate funding primarily because their large up front costs. But also like vocational programs,

these programs would end up saving money in the long run by reducing the recidivism rate.

Mary Carmichael argues this point in a piece for the popular political magazine, Newsweek, in

which she reports:

heroin addicts who received no treatment in jail were seven times as likely as treated
inmates to become re-addicted, and three times as likely to end up in prison again. For every
dollar spent, the programs save $2 to $6 by reducing the costs of re-incarceration.

This theme is repeated on the website for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, along with an

argument for the positive effects to be had upon society

According to several conservative estimates, every dollar invested in addiction treatment

programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice
costs, and theft. When savings related to healthcare are included, total savings can exceed costs
by a ratio of 12 to 1. Major savings to the individual and to society also stem from fewer
interpersonal conflicts; greater workplace productivity; and fewer drug-related accidents,
including overdoses and deaths.
 So Drug rehabilitation programs obviously work to lower the recidivism rate, not to

mention the fact that they have the potential to save billions of dollars. With these arguments

clearly laid out it is important to at least mention that if these first two points are not enough to

convince a person that drug rehabilitation programs are necessary, people should fight for these

programs based upon compassion. After all, the United States is a nation based upon compassion

and second chances, two things that are also fundamental components. While this third argument

is certainly not fact based like the previous two, it is certainly still important to the argument for

drug rehabilitation centers.

The prison population in the United States is at an all time high and this is not because of

the incarceration rate, as is popular belief, rather it is the recidivism rate. There are two main

methods that would prove effective in the effort to lower this rate of recidivism, these being the

widespread implementation of educational and vocational programs in prisons alongside drug

rehabilitation programs. Both of these types of programs are currently in use in prisons, but only

in limited fashion, due primarily to a lack of funding. However, if the money was spent up front,

then it could save the tax payer potentially Billions of dollars while simultaneously bettering the

lives of thousands. Comprehensive reform is undoubtedly necessary with respect to the criminal

justice system and the employment of these two programs would be a terrific please to start.