# data[].attributes.body
Environmental factors like housing access, safety, and transportation make or break recovery. Many people I support have to choose between unsafe shelters or returning to triggering environments. Organizations like Bridges to Change provide transitional housing, peer support, and a recovery-positive environment that makes long-term change possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bridges to Change supports people on their path to recovery through peer delivered services and stable housing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rebuilding Lives: Social Change and My Portland Community

# data[].attributes.subject
Rebuilding Lives: Social Change and My Portland Community

# data[].attributes.body
I belong to the recovery and reentry community in Portland. Many of us have lived through incarceration, addiction, homelessness, and systemic marginalization. As a Peer Support Specialist, I work alongside people in early recovery who are navigating housing, legal, and treatment systems. Our community is built on trust, shared experience, and hope, we support each other through the process of rebuilding lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Criminalization to Care: Undoing the Legacy of Drug Policy

# data[].attributes.subject
From Criminalization to Care: Undoing the Legacy of Drug Policy

# data[].attributes.body
The history of drug policy in the United States, especially the War on Drugs, continues to shape my community. People in recovery are often still treated as criminals instead of individuals in need of care and support. This article from the Prison Policy Initiative explains how our legal system continues to punish people for drug use, especially through probation and incarceration. It’s a reminder that even today, social change is still needed to shift from punishment to healing.

As someone who supports individuals coming out of jail or prison, I see how these policies create long-term barriers to housing, employment, and healthcare. We need more investment in peer support, harm reduction, and recovery services, not more jail time.

Not everyone in the recovery community is affected by drug policy the same way. People of color, especially Black and Indigenous individuals, have historically been policed more heavily and sentenced more harshly. Women, trans individuals, and unhoused people also face greater stigma and fewer resources in navigating the legal system and recovery options. Social location deeply shapes how someone experiences criminalization and access to support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite the common refrain that jails and prisons are "de facto treatment facilities," most prioritize punitive mail scanning policies and strict visitation rules that fail to prevent drugs from entering facilities while providing little to no access to treatment and healthcare.

by Emily Widra, January 30, 2024

Jails and prisons are often described as de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, and corrections officials increasingly frame their missions around offering healthcare. But the reality is quite the opposite: people with serious health needs are warehoused with severely inadequate healthcare and limited treatment options. Instead, jails and prisons rely heavily on punishment, while the most effective and evidence-based forms of healthcare are often the least available.

This tension points to a crucial flaw in our nation's reliance on criminalization: these institutions were never intended to be - and can never function as - healthcare providers. Efforts to reverse engineer them as such have proven ineffective, harmful, and financially wasteful, substituting medical best practices with moralizing and surveillance, from providing exclusively abstinence-based education to scanning and photocopying mail in a vain attempt to keep contraband out. This briefing builds on our past work about the unmet health needs of incarcerated people and the endless cycle of arrest for people who use drugs by compiling data on treatment availability versus drug-related punishment in jails and prisons across the country. We find that despite the lofty rhetoric, corrections officials punish people who use drugs far more than they provide them with healthcare.

Substance use disorders in jails and prisons far outpace rates in the general public

The prevalence of substance use disorders at every level of the criminal legal system points to an unavoidable fact: despite the deep unpopularity of the War on Drugs, our society still responds to substance use (and related crimes) as individual failures requiring punishment, rather than as a public health problem - and it's not working.

Nationally, approximately 8% of people met the criteria for substance use disorders in 2019, but such disorders are far more common among people who are arrested ( 41%) and people incarcerated in federal ( 32%) or state prisons ( 49%). This means that approximately three million people with substance use disorders are locked up in any given year: at least two million people with substance use disorders are arrested annually and about half a million people in state and federal prisons meet the criteria for such disorders at the time of their admission.

It's difficult to see more granular trends in the data - such as the type of substances involved or the health outcomes related to these disorders - but we have some clues from nationally representative jail, prison, and mortality data.

Jails. In 2019, only 64% of all people admitted to jail each month were screened for opioid use disorder, but of those people, about 15% met the criteria for opioid use disorder. It's likely that in jails where not everyone is screened on admission, people have similarly high rates of opioid use disorder, given the widespread extent of the opioid crisis. Because we cannot see the full picture through screenings alone, it's useful to look at mortality data as well. More than 15% of jail deaths in 2019 were attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication (overdose), a significant increase from 4% in 2000 and 7% in 2009.

Prisons. Many people who use drugs and need care are arrested and jailed over and over until, finally, one event lands them in prison. We estimate that more than 578,000 people (47%) in state and federal prisons in 2022 had a substance use disorder in the year prior to their admission. And while the mortality rates for drug and alcohol intoxication are lower in prisons than in jails, almost 7% of all deaths in state prisons in 2019 were due to drug or alcohol intoxication, compared to less than 2% in 2009. Meanwhile, in 2019, only 4% of all adult deaths in the U.S. were attributed to drugs or alcohol. All of these measures point to much higher rates of substance use disorders in prisons and jails compared to the total population.

Treatment options for opioid use disorder are scarce in jails and prisons

Not every person who uses substances needs or wants treatment, but it is imperative that evidence-based, quality healthcare options be made available for those who do - regardless of their involvement in the criminal legal system. For people with opioid use disorder, this can include psychosocial treatment (including counseling), medication-assisted treatment (MAT), and self-help groups. In correctional settings, the availability of such options pales in comparison to the level of need.

Jails. Of the nearly 3,000 local jails across the country, less than two-thirds ( 63%) screen people for opioid use disorder when they are admitted. Only half ( 54%) provide medications for people experiencing withdrawal. An even smaller percentage of jails - 41% - provide behavioral or psychological treatment, and 29% provide education about overdose. In fact, the most effective treatment - medication-assisted treatment (MAT) - is the least commonly provided: just 24% of jails continue MAT for people already engaged in treatment while only 19% initiate MAT for those who are not.

Quality medical interventions for people that use opioids are especially urgent in jails because of the rapid and acute risk of withdrawal. Over half a million people entering jails across the country each year are experiencing or at risk of this life-threatening medical event. Importantly, the percentage of people admitted to jail who receive treatment for opioid withdrawal varies significantly between states, which likely reflects differences in both opioid use and availability of treatment. For instance, over 15% of people admitted to jails in June 2019 in four states - New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington - were treated for opioid withdrawal, compared to less than 1% of admissions in seven other states.

Prisons. Most state and federal prisons ( 81%) offered some "drug or alcohol dependency, counseling, or awareness programs" in 2019, but among people in state prisons with a substance use disorder, only 10% had received clinical treatment in the form of a residential treatment program, professional counseling, detoxification unit, or MAT. This suggests the "drug or alcohol programming" available in prison facilities is primarily self-help or peer-based.

Unfortunately, MAT is the least common treatment in prisons: only 1% of people with substance use disorders in state and federal prisons reported receiving MAT at any point since their admission. In North Carolina, for example, over 9,000 people admitted to state prisons in Fiscal Year 2021-22 (78% of everyone screened during intake) met the criteria for needing intermediate or long-term substance use treatment, but the clinical director of the Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs reports that they are only able to treat 3,000 cases each year. The state launched a MAT pilot program in 2021, and as of January 2024, only 213 enrollees have received medications prior to release from prison.

Even when correctional facilities do offer necessary treatments, their one-size-fits-all approaches can be limiting, overlooking the specific needs of different populations. For example, women in prison are often expected to participate in treatment programs originally designed for men. Advocates report that because "there are fewer incarcerated women than men... there are fewer programs available for women serving time. If support is available, it is not always effective."

Ineffective and punitive responses to drug use in correctional facilities

Correctional facilities' preference for punishment does very little to actually reduce drug use and overdoses. It's not just that officials fail to provide evidence-based healthcare-they actively ignore evidence that punitive drug interdiction policies like mail scanning and visitation restrictions are ineffective and counterproductive, too.

Mail scanning. Prisons and jails are increasingly diverting incoming letters, greeting cards, and artwork, making photocopies or digital scans of them, and delivering those inferior versions to recipients. Administrators claim this practice will stem the flow of contraband - primarily, drugs - into their facilities, but there is no solid evidence to date that mail scanning has this intended effect. In addition to the emotional consequences and needless exploitation inherent in mail scanning, these practices result in long mail delays and the disruption of correspondence-based nonprofits, education programs, and ministries.

There are numerous examples of mail scanning failing to produce any meaningful reduction in drug use or overdoses in prisons across the country:

Pennsylvania: After instituting mail scanning, the percentage of incoming mail that the Department of Corrections reported as "tainted" only decreased by 0.1% over the course of a year. As of 2023, the rate of positive drug tests in Pennsylvania prisons is now almost 3 times higher than it was before the policy was introduced.

Missouri: In Missouri state prisons, the average number of overdoses per month increased from 34 to 39 after mail scanning was introduced in July 2022.

Virginia: Every year since the Virginia Department of Corrections began mail scanning in 2017, there have been more overdoses than in the year prior to instituting mail scanning (even while the state's incarcerated population declined during the COVID-19 pandemic).

New Mexico: After a mail scanning policy went into effect in February 2022, a report on the Corrections Department from the state's Legislative Finance Committee highlighted a nearly two-percentage point increase in positive random drug test results from Fiscal Year 2021 to Fiscal Year 2022 - almost doubling the positivity rate. This essentially "reverse[d] three years of reduced drug use" in the prison system, and the report authors noted that the mail scanning policy "does not appear to have reduced drug use" during the study period.

In fact, several prison systems seem to actively ignore the lack of evidence supporting mail scanning as a drug interdiction effort. The federal Bureau of Prisons has increasingly adopted mail scanning policies, reportedly following a letter from Pennsylvania congressional representatives "urg[ing] the BOP to follow Pennsylvania's lead," and such policies are now in place in almost every federal facility.

Visitation restrictions. There are a variety of policies in jails and prisons that restrict visitation and administrators often defend them as anti-contraband (i.e., anti-drug) initiatives. For example, in Virginia, some of these policies have included requiring visitors to change into state-issued jumpsuits without pockets, limiting approved visitor lists to 10 people, millimeter wave body scanners, and banning feminine hygiene products for visitors. In Washington, the latest state budget proposal betrays the state's biases in responding to drugs in prisons: it includes $4.7 million for MAT in prisons, which is only about half of the funding it would take to meet the needs of people in custody. At the same time, the Department requested $6.5 million for body scanner staff and operations, and the budget proposal offers even more than they asked for: $7.9 million. Incarcerated people routinely face humiliating search practices - including strip searches - following visitation, but considering the prevalence of drug use inside prisons and jails, these tactics do not appear to have made a meaningful impact.

Doubling down on failure: misunderstanding drug use inside

Prison and jail administrators often cite contraband medication as the primary reason for restricting access to MAT. While "diversion" of medications like buprenorphine can occur in prisons and jails, there are simple, proven diversion prevention strategies that any facility offering MAT could institute, whether they are correctional facilities or community health centers. We know that generally, "illicitly obtained" buprenorphine is most often used to self-treat opioid withdrawal when treatment is not available or has been denied. While there is much concern regarding diversion, an extensive analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics' mortality data from 2000-2013 revealed no overdose or death reports mentioning buprenorphine or Suboxone, consistent with previous research on New York City non-incarcerated overdose fatalities. It is clear that - just like in the community - the proven benefits of MAT outweigh the perceived risks of diversion.

Consistent with their punitive approach to drugs, many corrections officials enforce serious sanctions for positive drug tests, medication diversion, and non-fatal overdoses. Sanctions for drug use in prisons can include solitary confinement, denied visitation, delayed parole hearings, loss of "good time," reduced access to programming, facility transfers, reclassification, and fines. There is, unsurprisingly, no evidence that these disciplinary policies actually reduce drug use behind bars. However, it's easy to imagine how such approaches create a dynamic in which people hide their drug use and engage in riskier, deadlier behaviors. The culture fostered by punishment does not actually address drug use - it just makes it more dangerous.

Public health research has long been clear that punishing addiction does not actually help address substance use disorders, and there is no reason that it would work in jails and prisons. People who need mental health and substance use treatment are better served in voluntary, non-carceral, clinical treatment settings.

Overdose interventions and deaths

Jail and prison administrators are right to be concerned about drug overdoses behind bars. Overdose deaths are preventable and substance use disorders are treatable, but in 2019, more than 400 people in jails and prisons died of drug or alcohol intoxication.

Jails. In response to overdoses, some local jails have increased the availability of naloxone (an opioid overdose reversal medication also known by the brand name "Narcan"). In Maine, correctional staff in some facilities now carry naloxone on their belts rather than in a locked first aid kit. In New York City, all housing areas are required to have naloxone available.

Some jails have gone a step further: in San Diego County, the staff and people in custody have access to naloxone throughout the jail facility. In Los Angeles County jails and the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections jail in Kentucky, staff and incarcerated people have access to naloxone and receive training on how to administer it. The benefits of this dual approach cannot be overstated: in a single day in Los Angeles, two overdoses were reversed when incarcerated people administered naloxone and, over the course of a year, incarcerated people in the Louisville jail dispensed naloxone successfully to at least 24 people who had overdosed in the facility.

Prisons. The rates of death from drug or alcohol intoxication may be lower in prisons than in local jails, but they are still a serious - and growing - problem: from 2001 to 2019, the percentage of state prison deaths attributed to drug and alcohol intoxication increased from 1.2% to 6.6%. A September 2022 directive from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision requires correctional staff to administer naloxone as well as provide first aid and CPR as necessary, and includes a requirement for each facility to institute a procedure to make naloxone more accessible to staff. In Oklahoma, the State Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services reported that naloxone is available "on every unit" in state prisons, and future initiatives where "every CO will have Narcan on them" are expected as of May 2023.

Making naloxone physically present in correctional facilities is a good first step, but it's not enough. In April 2023, reporting from Filter detailed that, while correctional staff in Washington Department of Corrections facilities have access to naloxone, many are not properly trained. When interviewed, two correctional officers - incorrectly - told the reporter that "Narcan...doesn't work on fentanyl." The Filter story cites at least one Department of Corrections report of an overdose scene where staff were unable to locate, and were unsure how to administer, naloxone. As long as the criminal legal system continues to target and incarcerate people who use drugs, screening new admissions for opioid use, training staff and incarcerated people to use naloxone, and making naloxone available throughout facilities are the least these institutions could do.

Making reentry safer for people who use drugs

There are two crucial interventions that every jail and prison should offer upon release: free access to naloxone and appropriate, timely referrals to community-based MAT for people who received treatment while incarcerated. Yet less than one-third of local jails and far fewer prison systems offer either.

Naloxone. While naloxone is relatively inexpensive and easy to administer, in 2019, only 25% of jails provided naloxone to people being released. However, in the years following the 2019 survey, media coverage reveals that many jails - including those in Louisville, Kentucky, and Kershaw County, South Carolina - have added free naloxone vending machines near the facility exits.

In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation began providing free naloxone kits and training to people preparing for release from prison. By July 2022, 95% of people released from California state prisons had received the kits and training. A handful of other prison systems have publicized similar efforts to provide naloxone on release but with little accompanying data on the success of their projects. For example, the Indiana Department of Corrections announced an initiative in 2020 to offer people released from prison the "opportunity to leave with Naloxone," but there is little evidence available on the outcome of this program. Meanwhile, some states remain hostile to this very simple and effective intervention. In 2023, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt vetoed a bill that would allow prisons to give Narcan to people upon release.

Community referrals for MAT. In 2019, only 28% of local jails provided a community link to MAT on release. Jails need to partner with their local public health agencies to identify community-based MAT providers for people returning home. For people who started or continued MAT while in jail, uninterrupted access to that treatment is vital. These efforts must include support in navigating the often-complicated health insurance landscape. In 2019, 27% of people on parole and 23% of people who had been arrested at least once in the past year reported having no health insurance coverage. People leaving jail or prison who need MAT must have primary care providers and Medicaid, Medicare, or other health insurance set up prior to release.

Recommendations

It is clear that the criminal legal system is not suited to the task of acting as the de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment provider many claim it to be. There are at least a few areas ripe for intervention to improve this situation: reducing the number of people with substance use disorders entering the criminal legal system, instituting evidence-based practices in correctional facilities that actually reduce the risk of drug overdoses, and expanding treatment availability inside jails, prisons, and during reentry.

Prevent people with substance use disorders from entering the criminal legal system:

Address the social determinants of health and substance use. In order to reduce the flow of people with substance use disorders into jails and prisons, communities must prioritize housing, physical and mental healthcare, employment, and education. Increased funding for community-based drug treatment and other social services are crucial.

Decriminalize drug use. People should not be confined in jails or sentenced to incarceration for drug possession, drug checking supplies, or drug paraphernalia. Harm reduction efforts like clean syringe exchanges, overdose prevention centers, safety-focused education programs, and regulating the drug supply will more effectively - and humanely - reduce overdose risk among people who use drugs.

Institute effective, nonpunitive responses to drug use behind bars:

Screen for all substance use and mental health disorders. All admissions to prisons and jails should be screened for active substance use, substance use disorders, and mental health conditions.

Avoid punishments and restrictions as responses to drug use, particularly when there is no evidence that they meaningfully impact consumption and overdose. Reflexively restricting meaningful contact and relationships under the guise of drug prevention is especially harmful and counterproductive. This inevitably requires divesting from ineffective practices like mail scanning, canine drug detection, and electronic scanning equipment for visitation. There should be more focus on treatment than punishment for incarcerated people who struggle with addiction.

Invest in comprehensive MAT in jails and prisons including professional, clinical counseling, the availability of all MAT drugs, referrals to community providers upon release, and support reestablishing health insurance during reentry.

Expand treatment availability for substance use disorders:

Treatment participation must be voluntary in jail, prison, and the community. When treatment is involuntary or coerced, when people are re-incarcerated for positive drug tests, or when they're disqualified from participation in diversion programs based on their history of substance use, treatment is less effective. Instead, as the Drug Policy Alliance recommends, treatment should always be voluntary, involve clinicians rather than law enforcement, incorporate positive incentives, and use gold-standard medication and other practices.

Treatment should begin as soon as possible. Any kind of treatment for substance use disorders and mental health conditions cannot be limited to the weeks or months leading up to release from jail or prison.

Treatment requires informed consent. Healthcare providers should seek out informed consent from all individuals who are eligible for MAT and they must have access to all treatment options.

Substance use disorder treatment - as handed down by the criminal legal system - is not working as advertised. Jails and prisons are not healthcare institutions and their mandate for punishment makes patient-centered care impossible and health outcomes worse. Instead, the United States desperately needs healthcare infrastructure that can support people who use drugs outside of carceral settings. While corrections officials request further investments under the guise of treatment, the stigma, isolation, and punishment that helped foment the present crisis persist. Our communities cannot punish their way out of public health crises, but as long as policymakers insist on incarcerating people with substance use disorders, they need to at least provide evidence-based care to those who want and need it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Addicted to punishment: Jails and prisons punish drug use far more than they treat it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the common refrain that jails and prisons are de facto treatment facilities, most prioritize punitive mail scanning policies and strict visitation rules that fail ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Lasting change starts with small, steady steps taken every day.

# data[].attributes.body
This module reinforced that social change is not only about major laws or protests. It is also built through consistent, everyday actions. In the recovery community, challenging stigma, speaking up when policies harm clients, and supporting harm reduction practices all help change the system from punishment to care. Over time, these small but persistent efforts can change how entire institutions respond to addiction and reentry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
One voice can spark hope, but many voices can drive change

# data[].attributes.body
Recovery advocacy is part of a broader social movement for health, equity, and justice reform. Like other movements, we rely on solidarity and shared purpose. When people in recovery speak out together, whether it is at rallies, public hearings, or in community meetings, we amplify each other’s voices and push for changes like better treatment access and alternatives to incarceration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Rebuilding lives means rebuilding communities that are safe for everyone, including the environment we share.

# data[].attributes.body
Environmental justice and social justice are closely linked. I have worked with people whose recovery is made harder by unsafe housing, poor air quality, or neighborhoods without safe public spaces. These issues often hit low-income and marginalized communities the hardest. I have also seen how spiritual beliefs and practices can inspire people to care for each other and the environment, whether through faith-based recovery programs, Indigenous traditions, or community rituals. While belief systems can also be misused to exclude or oppress, they hold powerful potential to unite communities in addressing both social inequities and environmental challenges. Addressing recovery means looking at the environments people return to and drawing on both practical resources and belief systems that motivate change for a healthier, more just world.

# data[].attributes.body
Social movements bring people together to challenge injustice and create better futures. In recovery and reentry work, I have seen how collective action can change policies and improve lives. Environmental justice movements work in a similar way. They unite communities to protect health, safety, and access to resources while also addressing inequalities made worse by environmental changes. Indigenous-led movements are especially powerful because they bring generations of knowledge about living in balance with the land and resisting exploitative systems. Just like peer-led recovery, they show how community leadership can reshape systems, correct injustice, and build resilience for both people and the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Policies can either create barriers or open doors for recovery

# data[].attributes.body
Summary:
Government policies and access to healthcare directly affect recovery outcomes. Barriers like probation restrictions, lack of affordable housing, and limited treatment access can make stability harder to achieve. Systemic changes such as harm reduction programs and transitional housing can help shift the focus from punishment to support.

Social Change Influence:

Government policies, law enforcement practices, and healthcare access shape every step of the recovery and reentry journey. Our community often faces probation rules that limit housing options, waitlists for treatment, and healthcare systems that are difficult to navigate. These barriers can put safety and stability at risk, making systemic change essential. Harm reduction programs, transitional housing, and expanded access to mental health care are all examples of how the state can shift from punishment to support.

Social Location Connection:
The impact of these systems is not equal. People of color, women, and unhoused individuals often face harsher treatment, longer legal consequences, and fewer resources. Understanding social location helps explain why some members of our community experience more obstacles than others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Collective action can transform lives and rewrite the narrative on recovery

# data[].attributes.body
Summary:
Recovery advocacy is part of a larger movement for health, justice, and equity. Peer-led efforts, harm reduction initiatives, and criminal justice reform campaigns challenge stigma and push for systemic reform. These movements show how collective action can change public attitudes and open more opportunities for people in recovery.

Social Change Influence:

Recovery advocacy is part of a broader movement for justice, health, and equity. Peer-led groups, harm reduction advocates, and criminal justice reform campaigns are working to end stigma, change laws, and open more pathways to stability. Our community’s strength lies in collective action, from rallies and public hearings to everyday conversations that challenge stereotypes.

Social Location Connection:
Social movements affect members differently. People with intersecting marginalized identities, such as being formerly incarcerated and part of a racial minority, often have more at stake and more to gain from these reforms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Circle of people holding hands in prayer or reflection.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary:

Spiritual belief systems, from faith-based recovery programs to Indigenous traditions, play a powerful role in the recovery and reentry community. They provide meaning, resilience, and connection, and often inspire social and environmental justice work. While some have experienced harm or exclusion from religious institutions, others find these beliefs essential to healing.

Social Change Influence:

Spiritual belief systems can be a powerful force in recovery, offering meaning, motivation, and a sense of belonging. In our community, this can take many forms, including faith-based recovery programs, Indigenous traditions, and community rituals that promote healing. While beliefs can be used to exclude or judge, we focus on their ability to unite people and inspire both social and environmental justice.

Social Location Connection:
The role of religion and spirituality can vary widely. Some members draw deeply on these practices for strength, while others may have experienced harm or exclusion from religious institutions. Recognizing this diversity ensures that spiritual support is offered in ways that are inclusive and empowering.

# data[].attributes.body
Addiction and criminal records still carry heavy stigma in mainstream culture. But inside our recovery community, we share a culture of mutual aid, honesty, and resilience. Peer-led programs, language like "person in recovery" and harm reduction efforts reflect how we’re shifting narratives around substance use and reentry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Every part of a city is connected, just like the institutions that shape recovery and reentry.

# data[].attributes.body
In recovery and reentry work, I see how deeply connected social institutions are. Housing access, healthcare, employment, and family stability all influence each other. When someone can’t get stable housing, it affects their ability to keep a job or attend treatment. As a Peer Support Specialist, I often help people navigate these overlapping systems, while also working alongside organizations pushing for policy changes that remove these barriers.